( Ex ) copper gets away with murder?
Discussion
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18827691.timothy-...
Okay, 10 years for that? I didn’t hear the evidence first hand, but really? Surely anyone else would have got life, and it would have been murder.
Okay, 10 years for that? I didn’t hear the evidence first hand, but really? Surely anyone else would have got life, and it would have been murder.
Wacky Racer said:
So are you suggesting he got special treatment because he was a policeman?
Verdict was manslaughter.
Like I said, I wasn’t party to the evidence, first hand. But it seems extremely odd that the plea of guilty to manslaughter was accepted, and he wasn’t tried for murder. I’m sure he’ll be having a whale of a time for his 6 and a half years in chokey.Verdict was manslaughter.
Edited by BrundanBianchi on Wednesday 28th October 17:51
Red 4 said:
You'll need to prove intent to kill or commit GBH for murder.
That appears to be the issue here.
His defence appears to be that it was a rush of blood to the head and there was no intent.
Life imprisonment for manslaughter is possible but rare.
So ‘Crime passionnel’ then? I’m sure that’s a uniquely French thing.That appears to be the issue here.
His defence appears to be that it was a rush of blood to the head and there was no intent.
Life imprisonment for manslaughter is possible but rare.
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.
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.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.
sebdangerfield said:
BrundanBianchi said:
sebdangerfield said:
Some of the best threads are those where someone who knows f
k all about law prove they know fk all about law but still have an opinion on the bit they know fk all about. 
The same could be said for people that understand “fk all about law prove they know fk all about law but still have an opinion on the bit they know fk all about. k all” about sarcasm 
t, I didn't realise it was sarcasm. Were these also sarcasm?
BrundanBianchi said:
Okay, 10 years for that? I didn’t hear the evidence first hand, but really? Surely anyone else would have got life, and it would have been murder.
That just reads like you've no idea what you're talking about rather than sarcasm.BrundanBianchi said:
Like I said, I wasn’t party to the evidence, first hand. But it seems extremely odd that the plea of guilty to manslaughter was accepted, and he wasn’t tried for murder. I’m sure he’ll be having a whale of a time for his 6 and a half years in chokey.
And here I assume the sarcasm is that you know he was tried for murder?BrundanBianchi said:
So ‘Crime passionnel’ then? I’m sure that’s a uniquely French thing.
This may actually be sarcasm TBHBrundanBianchi said:
Quite. He will do 6 and a half years in chokey, the rest on licence. I’m sure he’ll enjoy every minute of his incarceration.
Is the sarcasm here the bit about 6 and a half years? Because you know he'll do 5 and face parole right? So nobody knows right now how long he'll do.BrundanBianchi said:
Every day’s a school day. So that is a defence in the British justice system then?
I'm not sure not committing murder is a defence to murder TBH. Or was that sarcasm?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff