( Ex ) copper gets away with murder?
Discussion
AlexC1981 said:
Sounds like he got off the murder charge because the jury wasn't sure if he was doing it on purpose when he strangled her to death.
Obviously none of the jury had any idea just how hard it is to ‘accidentally’ do that. It would be incredibly difficult to inflict that amount of damage to a functioning, struggling, human being, in my opinion.b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Smiljan said:
Am I missing something, that all seems to be about politics, migrants, EU. Not a murder trial
Hmm if I use that link it takes me straight to a thread that's about the verdict?https://twitter.com/barristersecret/status/1321156...
Edit - just been through my settings and that account was muted for some reason. All good with both links now.
According to the local news, the meeting itself took place after the victim had text the perpetrators wife, to inform her of their affair.
Apparently, he told lie after lie, whilst being questioned. So, why he got 2 years taken off the 12 years sentence, for pleading guilty, is a bit of a joke, when he could have gotten a maximum sentence of 20 years!?
Apparently, he told lie after lie, whilst being questioned. So, why he got 2 years taken off the 12 years sentence, for pleading guilty, is a bit of a joke, when he could have gotten a maximum sentence of 20 years!?
BrundanBianchi said:
Brave Fart said:
I'd say that if you're starting a thread suggesting bias in the justice system you should 1) know what the defendant was actually tried for and 2) read up on the details of the evidence (like the Secret Barrister's tweets).
Otherwise, you'd look like a fool.
I have done, even the ‘secret barrister’ admits it was super complicated. Anyone who didn’t see that bit, but posted stuff anyway would look like a ‘fool’.Otherwise, you'd look like a fool.
it always seems that these 'accidental' kilings are by men against women - perhaps because of the chances of a women 'accidently' strangling a man is pretty much impossible. It still surprises that so many people don't fully appreciate how much stronger the average man is compared to the average woman.
the judge at least seemed to have the measure of the perpetrator
“I am sure that you did deliberately take Claire Parry by the neck, applying significant force with your forearm or the crook of your elbow for a period of time while she struggled against you thereby causing the severe neck injuries which the pathologist described.”
The trial heard the injuries would have resulted from significant force to the neck for a minimum 10 to 30 seconds and possibly longer.
As a “trained and experienced” road traffic police officer, Brehmer would have known Parry was seriously injured yet did nothing to help her, the judge said. He could not have thought, as he said in his police interview, she was “simply taking a breath”, the judge added.
“You must have known that her body had gone limp after your assault on her. Before you walked to the car park entrance you must have seen how she was hanging half out of the car.”
However, I am puzzled that judge also said Brehmer only just met the “qualifying trigger” for a loss of control defence in that he had a “justifiable sense of being wronged” because he should have been the one to tell his wife about the affair.
So, despite presumably having had plenty of opportunities during the previous ten years about the affair the fact that victim did the telling in some way mitigates the crime.
The guy will be barely 50 by the time he gets out.
Madness.
the judge at least seemed to have the measure of the perpetrator
“I am sure that you did deliberately take Claire Parry by the neck, applying significant force with your forearm or the crook of your elbow for a period of time while she struggled against you thereby causing the severe neck injuries which the pathologist described.”
The trial heard the injuries would have resulted from significant force to the neck for a minimum 10 to 30 seconds and possibly longer.
As a “trained and experienced” road traffic police officer, Brehmer would have known Parry was seriously injured yet did nothing to help her, the judge said. He could not have thought, as he said in his police interview, she was “simply taking a breath”, the judge added.
“You must have known that her body had gone limp after your assault on her. Before you walked to the car park entrance you must have seen how she was hanging half out of the car.”
However, I am puzzled that judge also said Brehmer only just met the “qualifying trigger” for a loss of control defence in that he had a “justifiable sense of being wronged” because he should have been the one to tell his wife about the affair.
So, despite presumably having had plenty of opportunities during the previous ten years about the affair the fact that victim did the telling in some way mitigates the crime.
The guy will be barely 50 by the time he gets out.
Madness.
rover 623gsi said:
it always seems that these 'accidental' kilings are by men against women - perhaps because of the chances of a women 'accidently' strangling a man is pretty much impossible. It still surprises that so many people don't fully appreciate how much stronger the average man is compared to the average woman.
the judge at least seemed to have the measure of the perpetrator
“I am sure that you did deliberately take Claire Parry by the neck, applying significant force with your forearm or the crook of your elbow for a period of time while she struggled against you thereby causing the severe neck injuries which the pathologist described.”
The trial heard the injuries would have resulted from significant force to the neck for a minimum 10 to 30 seconds and possibly longer.
As a “trained and experienced” road traffic police officer, Brehmer would have known Parry was seriously injured yet did nothing to help her, the judge said. He could not have thought, as he said in his police interview, she was “simply taking a breath”, the judge added.
“You must have known that her body had gone limp after your assault on her. Before you walked to the car park entrance you must have seen how she was hanging half out of the car.”
However, I am puzzled that judge also said Brehmer only just met the “qualifying trigger” for a loss of control defence in that he had a “justifiable sense of being wronged” because he should have been the one to tell his wife about the affair.
So, despite presumably having had plenty of opportunities during the previous ten years about the affair the fact that victim did the telling in some way mitigates the crime.
The guy will be barely 50 by the time he gets out.
Madness.
[Jeffrey Epstein]If he gets out [/Jeffrey Epstein] the judge at least seemed to have the measure of the perpetrator
“I am sure that you did deliberately take Claire Parry by the neck, applying significant force with your forearm or the crook of your elbow for a period of time while she struggled against you thereby causing the severe neck injuries which the pathologist described.”
The trial heard the injuries would have resulted from significant force to the neck for a minimum 10 to 30 seconds and possibly longer.
As a “trained and experienced” road traffic police officer, Brehmer would have known Parry was seriously injured yet did nothing to help her, the judge said. He could not have thought, as he said in his police interview, she was “simply taking a breath”, the judge added.
“You must have known that her body had gone limp after your assault on her. Before you walked to the car park entrance you must have seen how she was hanging half out of the car.”
However, I am puzzled that judge also said Brehmer only just met the “qualifying trigger” for a loss of control defence in that he had a “justifiable sense of being wronged” because he should have been the one to tell his wife about the affair.
So, despite presumably having had plenty of opportunities during the previous ten years about the affair the fact that victim did the telling in some way mitigates the crime.
The guy will be barely 50 by the time he gets out.
Madness.
Lord Marylebone said:
I just cannot see how pressing your elbow/forearm into someones neck with extreme force, for 30 seconds or more until they stop moving, can possibly be regarded as manslaughter.
It seems a very deliberate and violent act designed to kill.
But what do I know.
And then not doing anything to save them or summoning assistance when they are evidently unresponsive. Surely if it was not deliberate that would be the immediate response- he must have had basic first aid training.It seems a very deliberate and violent act designed to kill.
But what do I know.
But we didn't hear the evidence or see how he performed in court.
In addition- relationships frequently end with one or both parties treating the other abominably- it's the risk you take when entering one. I don't see this as much excuse for loss of control to the extent of killing, unless death was a very unlikely consequence of the behaviour- throwing a shoe perhaps. Actually shooting would be more understandable to me- split second decision immediately regretted. But strangling?
Lord Marylebone said:
I just cannot see how pressing your elbow/forearm into someones neck with extreme force, for 30 seconds or more until they stop moving, can possibly be regarded as manslaughter.
It seems a very deliberate and violent act designed to kill.
But what do I know.
I don't quite get this one, I get that he damaged her whilst out of control.It seems a very deliberate and violent act designed to kill.
But what do I know.
But when he left her to die and exited the car park, in the full knowledge he was leaving her to die does that not tick the premeditated box on a murder charge?
biggbn said:
Animal. Bully. Coward. Ridiculous sentence. I have friends who got close to, or more than, ten years for less. One can only imagine the furore on fora the country over had he been a gypsy or from another cultural background or religous group.
Agree completely, IMO this was murder and sentence should double for a serving police officer.To protect and to serve.
Octoposse said:
I'm just grateful I've never been on a Jury and had to make decisions like that.
I've been on two, both same Crown Court over a period of years. I was even called a third time but two were enough for me, eyes opened etc. Got out of it because of (well timed!) short illness.Can't go into details of the trials, but for flavour the first occasion was a rape (horrific) and when the offender didn't turn up first day, we all stood milling around outside chattering believing the police or someone would go and get him. Nah, they just cancelled the proceedings, so we all went back home! I still recall a woman saying to me 'What if he doesn't turn up tomorrow?'
Some of us lived miles away. Still, we were all claiming our expenses. He did turn up next day, whether he was coerced who knows.
The woman who had asked the question the day prior was alongside me when the Usher introduced herself and then took us all in. It was the sight of the usher, the woman kept nudging my side - the usher was young lady with studs and piercings on her face that would rival the best punks!
During the sessions the defendant stood there staring at everyone, including us. You could see that a couple of the women jurors found it intimidating. I didn't think about it, I just listened intently. The rest of the fortnight or whatever my eyes were opened by some of the procedure and by one or two of the other jurors - a spectrum to say the least. At break a few days on, two talked about missing their lunchtime big Macs!! From what I remember they seemed long days - in the breaks most read newspapers, mags or books - I took a manuscript with me to read/check (so, effectively, still doing my job - publisher!, and did so on the bus journeys in and homeward - I couldn't be bothered to drive as too much hassle parking).
Eventually, the defendant was found guilty - although one oddball juror was 'convinced' of his innocence LOL even after all the damning evidence.
Guilty as f
k! We later found out he had a long string of previous and should have been locked up far earlier.Edited by dandarez on Wednesday 28th October 22:06
Legacywr said:
According to the local news, the meeting itself took place after the victim had text the perpetrators wife, to inform her of their affair.
Apparently, he told lie after lie, whilst being questioned. So, why he got 2 years taken off the 12 years sentence, for pleading guilty, is a bit of a joke, when he could have gotten a maximum sentence of 20 years!?
It seems the victim used his phone to text his wife....................Apparently, he told lie after lie, whilst being questioned. So, why he got 2 years taken off the 12 years sentence, for pleading guilty, is a bit of a joke, when he could have gotten a maximum sentence of 20 years!?
Legacywr said:
According to the local news, the meeting itself took place after the victim had text the perpetrators wife, to inform her of their affair.
Apparently, he told lie after lie, whilst being questioned. So, why he got 2 years taken off the 12 years sentence, for pleading guilty, is a bit of a joke, when he could have gotten a maximum sentence of 20 years!?
Because you do not get extra for lying to Police and you get time off for an early guilty plea.Apparently, he told lie after lie, whilst being questioned. So, why he got 2 years taken off the 12 years sentence, for pleading guilty, is a bit of a joke, when he could have gotten a maximum sentence of 20 years!?
BrundanBianchi said:
Red 4 said:
Loss of control ? Yes, it's a defence.
Apparently so, a very complex / obscure bit of legislation from 2009 by the looks of it. Jeebus, his legal team must have been trawling the library for weeks to find that.It’s an odd case reading what the press have said about it, quite confusing. I suspect the version of events in court were a little clearer, and there was not the proof of ‘intent’. Also, presumably not having used a weapon, merely his arms etc, may help in avoiding a murder conviction?
But, the reports about how she was killed, and how he says it happened do sound a bit unbelievable. Surely to pretty much kill someone in a car, with your bare hands, needs some sort of ‘sustained’ attack, even a random punch that can kill out on the street etc, would be much more difficult to perform in a car, confined space etc?
It’s a sad old job all round. Was she not a colleagues missus or something, and herself a nurse? To lose a life over an affair, albeit a sustained one, is very sad. Lots of lives directly affected by this too.
But, the reports about how she was killed, and how he says it happened do sound a bit unbelievable. Surely to pretty much kill someone in a car, with your bare hands, needs some sort of ‘sustained’ attack, even a random punch that can kill out on the street etc, would be much more difficult to perform in a car, confined space etc?
It’s a sad old job all round. Was she not a colleagues missus or something, and herself a nurse? To lose a life over an affair, albeit a sustained one, is very sad. Lots of lives directly affected by this too.
Single shove or punch deaths where someone intends to assault someone or push them away and the other party falls over and bangs their head on the ground or kerb stone?
People can die if they bang their heads on something hard, like the ground, the wrong way.
If people can die falling off of a bicycle it seems possible you can die being pushed out of a car door.
People can die if they bang their heads on something hard, like the ground, the wrong way.
If people can die falling off of a bicycle it seems possible you can die being pushed out of a car door.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff