Okay, so I know I wasn’t in the court to hear the evidence. I know all I’ve got to go on are media reports, and they’re not always completely reliable. But. I still can’t get my head around the verdict in the Ronald Tyler case. I mean seriously, how the fuck can someone with a history of domestic violence like this:
The Old Bailey heard Julie McKinley had reported her husband to police 24 times during their 16 year relationship.
Only four ever made it to court while the other 20 were not pursued after she withdrew the allegations.
In January 2004 she claimed Tyler had punched her in the stomach and throttled her until she momentarily blacked out.
She obtained a non-molestation order later that month which was renewed for 12 months on March 16, 2004.
Two months later she withdrew the complaint and they were reconciled.
In April 2006 she made another complaint and Tyler was convicted of using threatening or abusive words or behaviour.
He made subject to another non-molestation order in April 2008 following another attack and in November 2008 was convicted of common assault.
She said Tyler told her: ‘If you stop me seeing my kids I will finish you off.’
He was given a suspended prison sentence but the following year was convicted of breaching the non-molestation order.
Tyler was jailed for a year on July 28, 2009, but was released from jail just three months later in October 2009.
kill his wife and end up with a verdict of “manslaughter on the basis of provocation”? How?
The jury should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
And so should the police, who are now appealing “for victims of domestic violence to come forward and “break the cycle of abuse” after a man who strangled his wife to death was convicted of manslaughter.”
Why on earth would the outcome of the Tyler case prompt any victim of dv to come forward? Come forward for what? So they can be told they provoked the violence too?
Tell you what, how about the police put out an appeal for the perpetrators of domestic violence to come forward instead, so they can break the cycle of their fucking abuse.
And here’s just one example of why victims don’t bother coming forward. Because even when they do, nothing happens:
“Days before her death, Ms Stubbings told police her house had been burgled, that she believed Chivers was responsible and that she feared for her safety.
Chivers already had a conviction for murdering a previous girlfriend and had also been jailed for assaulting Ms Stubbings.
But officers took days to respond to her calls for help.
When they visited her home a week after the first call she was already dead, her body hidden in a downstairs bathroom. Chivers was at the house and told the police she had gone away.
Maria’s brother, Manuel Fernandez, has told Radio 4’s Face The Facts he is astonished they did not probe further.
“How can a convicted murderer open the door, with her car on the drive, her keys in full view and her phone not being answered?
“Her friends had made frequent phone calls to the police, really deeply concerned for her safety, and they left him a calling card and said ‘Well if she comes back, let us know.'”
The following day, officers returned to the house and discovered Maria’s body. In December 2009, Mark Chivers admitted murdering Maria and was jailed for life.”
The IPCC report into the Maria Stubbings case is due to be published any day now. Meanwhile Essex police have apologised for the mistakes its officers made.
Well that’s okay then.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Quite! Who would an abusive man go to for help? I’ve googled and cannot come up with anywhere that I could advise an abusive partner to go for help.
What do you mean, ‘help’? Why should violent men get ‘help’? To break the cycle of abuse they need to stop being abusive, and I don’t believe that they need ‘help’ to do that, unless the kind of help you’re talking about involves actual justice and punishment for the crimes they’ve committed. Advise them to turn themselves in to the police, advise them to stay away from women, what more advice do you want to give?
This is so fucking disturbing, but sadly not surprising. I’ve seen it before when working in criminal law – the woman would withdraw charges (and you know it’s because she’s being threatened and in fear of her life) and the police officers and lawyers involved in the case would start going on about her making things up, exaggerating, and ‘being as bad’ as the male. No one ever believes women, and even if they do, they put all their focus on getting ‘help’ for the men, in the form of anger management classes or similar bullshit. Well, we know for a fact that violent men are usually extremely good at controlling their anger – to the extent that often no one outside the immediately family ever suspects that they are violent at all.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the jury wont have been told of his prior convictions. So while previous convictions are taken account of in sentencing they wont have been part of the jury’s deliberations on the verdict, so they aren’t ‘to blame’ as such.
Obviously this is in place so the police don’t just arrest people with form and juries end up sentencing them based on their record not the facts before them.
“Why should violent men get ‘help’?”
If someone who has problems seeks help to stop that behaviour they should get that help surely?
jim, I thought that too, and initially this post was going to be about whether or not there was an argument to be made for juries being told of prior convictions in cases like this.
However, reading the coverage of the case it looks as though the jury was informed, at least about some elements of Tyler’s controlling behaviour. I know the prosecutor described him to the jury as someone who was “obsessively jealous of Julie and who had a violent temper particularly when in drink.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/strangled-mother-found-in-bed-near-sleeping-baby-2047707.html
I actually think juries should be informed when there’s a history of dv like this. I understand the arguments against, but when there’s such a clear pattern of behaviour I think its unfair to the victim and to the jury for that evidence to be withheld.
The Mail says he “told jurors: ‘I deserve to be in prison for the rest of my life. If I had the balls to take my own life I would do it so I could be with her.’ ” but it seems to be a bit ambiguous about whether they knew of his previous convictions (for instance it says ‘the court was told’ some things, which could be after the verdict but before sentencing).
Although I don’t want to take the press reports at face value it does seem like the wrong decision.
I think juries can be made aware of previous convictions when there is an obvious connection to the present case – if certain specific aspects of the way it was carried out are so obviously mirrored in a previous offence that it makes the same offender likely. (An extreme example would be an unusual way of killing someone).
In Tyler’s case, it wouldn’t be relevant. He’d never killed or committed manslaughter before, so his previous convictions for DV wouldn’t help a jury decide whether he was guilty of murder or manslaughter.
But I agree: horrible verdict. I don’t confess to understand fully how provocation works, especially as, in this instance, the defence surely rests solely on his testimony of what happened. At least the judge is proposing an indefinite sentence, which is something. I’d say let him rot, while also echoing the idea that men like him should be encouraged or forced to get “help” (non-loaded term) , and warning signs taken far more seriously by the authorities.
I agree the report in the Mail is ambiguous. Previous convictions are not usually admissible in court, (the exception being similar fact evidence) however in this case (where the act in question is not denied, merely whether it constituted murder or manslaughter) the history of violence is also the background of the case. And therefore could have been presented to the jury. And it seems from this less ambiguous report before the verdict was reached, it was.
http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/content/islington/gazette/news/story.aspx?brand=ISLGOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsislg&itemid=WeED13%20Aug%202010%2010%3A42%3A13%3A747
So: for anyone who is still confused, the jury did hear the history of domestic violence.
Thanks Polly. I knew I’d read something less ambiguous than the Mail and Indie coverage re what the jury was told, but I couldn’t find the link again when I was replying to jim.
So, the jury heard all that, and still concluded it was provocation. I stand by my original comment: members of that jury should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
As to how provocation works. Well it won’t do after 4 oct 2010. It will be replaced by ‘loss of control’. But the jury need to be satisfied that a ‘reasonable person’ in the same circumstances would have done the same.
(reasonable person is a somewhat complicated concept though).
But it does need to be a reaction to events. Reasonable explanation here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_in_English_law
Therefore I’d disagree that the history of domestic violence is irrelevant. It makes it much less likely that this was a one off reaction to those particular circumstances if there was a previous history of violence by the defendant against the victim (the actual act of homicide was not in dispute).
It’s worth pointing out that the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment, the same as for murder. So the judge does have the discretion, depending on the circumstances of the case to punish the defendant as severely as if they’d committed murder and that’s exactly what the Mail report indicated was being considered.
The new law is supposed (despite how it is being represented in the press) to tackle some of the anomalies in the defence of provocation. The credibility of Tyler seems very shaky to me – he reported there was a dead body in the house when making a 999 call, but then denied knowing Julie Mckinley was dead when he left the house. The problem is that the jury would still have been justified in finding that he was provoked (if they thought his account of events was credible, which personally I don’t) even given the history of domestic violence under the current law. So their decision is odd, but he could have had a really convincing defence lawyer. And maybe the prosecution didn’t present the case that convincingly.
I still think though that a better way forward would have been to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder and get rid of both offences, simply having an offence of voluntary homicide. The present distinction creates too many anomalies.
Quite! Who would an abusive man go to for help? I’ve googled and cannot come up with anywhere that I could advise an abusive partner to go for help.
You know what, earwicga? I come across situations all the time that make me want to punch somebody, and you know what I do? I control myself. I control myself because I don’t feel entitled to act out violence on other people’s bodies. Like all violent men, this one felt he had the right to hurt women. All the helplines in the world are not going to cure male entitlement. They are not going to seek help for their sense of entitlement, are they?
But even so, I have seen many adverts/pamphlets for help for violent partners.
http://www.dvip.org/men.html
Also the probation service of course.
http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Abuser/abusive_help.htm
Google is your friend.
http://www.respect.uk.net/pages/i-have-been-violent-or-abusive-and-i-need-help.html
really it is.
Exactly, polly. And I have seen pamphlets to that effect basically everywhere. I am getting really fed up with these verbally fellating antifeminists calling themselves feminists.
Have to agree with most of the points here. Seems the jury think that any ‘reasonable person’ could react in the same way when told that their baby son was fathered by someone else. One of the questions they asked related to whether they could take into account the fact he was drunk. Perhaps the definition of a ‘reasonable man’ has changed recently. Although about nine years ago a jury returned the same verdict against a man who battered his wife to death, cooked her head in the oven at gas mark 8 and threw her body parts off her cliff, watched by their kids.
http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/c_murderers/a_roger_frisby/crime_vaults/
Some juries tend to compromise and choose a half-way house verdict, possibly because they feel uncomfortable about giving people a life sentence. Plus Tyler confessed and said he deserved a life sentence, inviting pity. I expect he will get one of these newfangled IPP sentences, which is like a life sentence but with a minimum term of about 6 years before he can apply for parole.
“I am getting really fed up with these verbally fellating antifeminists calling themselves feminists.”
Yeah. It sucks (cocks) that the first comment on this story is ‘what about teh menz’ bullshit. There’s loads of ‘help’ out there for abusive, violent men. Unfortunately they usually only access that ‘help’ when ordered to by a court, to keep themselves out of prison, or otherwise to ingratiate themselves with the justice system. I have also seen men use the fact that they are ‘getting help’ to deliberately play on women’s sympathies and win their trust, in order to perpetuate their violence and cruelty.
P.S. Sorry for double post… forgot to log in 🙂
To Cath,
you accept you weren’t in court to hear all the evidence. Your commentary on the case should therefore start and end there. You are not qualified to comment or pass any judgment on the verdict reached. I accept you’re entitled to your view but I think it should be expressed with a clause stating that it is based on moral opinion only with no first hand factual knowledge of the case. Unlike the jurors who sat through 4 days of evidence. As a result I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
Totally Anon, nobody should ever have an opinion on anything that’s been reported in the newspapers.
I accept you’re entitled to your view but I think it should be expressed with a clause stating that it is based on moral opinion only with no first hand factual knowledge of the case.
Why? It’s a blog, not the government. If Mr Tyler thinks he’s been libelled, he can always sue.
Dear ‘Anon’ (original name, by the way),
This:
you accept you weren’t in court
doesn’t go very well with this:
it should be expressed with a clause stating that it is based on moral opinion only with no first hand factual knowledge of the case
now does it?
Plus the piece starts…
Okay, so I know I wasn’t in the court to hear the evidence. I know all I’ve got to go on are media reports, and they’re not always completely reliable. But. I still can’t get my head around the verdict in the Ronald Tyler case.
Anon
What, that crap shameful verdict that saw a serial perpetrator of domestic violence get a pat on the head along with some reassurance that it wasn’t all his fault ‘cos he was provoked bless him?
Bugger, I just did it again didn’t I?
Tsk tsk Cath. Why not just announce your intention to seperate from men while you’re at it?
Sorry spelling – separate.
Did you know Polly, that’s apparently the second most common spelling mistake on t’Internet?
http://www.re-vision.com/spelling/separate.html
Tsk tsk 😉
It’s one of the few words I just can’t spell for some reason. I’m fine with accommodation for instance. Both ways look wrong.
You should write for the Daily Mail Cath, it would suit you well.
Dear All
Not getting your head around the verdict is one thing. It seems that none of you sat through the evidence so that’s hardly suprising. It’s saying the jurors should be fucking ashamed of themselves I object to. I do not believe that anyone posting on this site is qualified in any way, shape or form to pass that sort of judgment.
Dear Anon
What qualifications do you think I should have to have to pass judgment on jurors decisions exactly?
Oh no, the poor oppressed jurors now, eh? Anything, just whatever, to get the focus off violent men’s behaviour and the women whose lives they destroy.
I’m not passing any judgment that’s the difference. And Valerie, what utter nonesense you do type.
Well except on Valeries comments, but it seems that’s allowed on this blog so I don’t anticipate negative comments
Clearly the only person who should be allowed to have opinions and make judgements about anything is ‘Anon’. I mean, certainly any comments that criticise male violence and its apologists should be approved by a random internet stranger first. As Valerie says, Anon will use any tactic, no matter how pathetic, to get the focus away from men’s violence and abuse.
Yeah, maybe you’re right Anon, it was a bit of a sweeping statement.
Ok, I’ll amend it a bit:
All but 2 of the jurors should be fucking ashamed of themselves, as it appears that the verdict was arrived at by a 10-2 majority.
To the 2 who didn’t agree with this travesty – you rock!
Goodness people. I am now going to leave you all to you (not even) half baked ramblings. It seems you all share half a brain cell.
Night x
Okay, nighty night, Anon! x
Just read all the media reports concerning the case of Ronald Tyler who committed lethal femicide and it does appear the reason why the jury decided by a majority of 10-2 that Tyler committed manslaughter due to provocation was – wait for it? Poor Tyler his female partner (aka his sexual property) dared to have a child wherein Tyler was not the biological father.
Given we all live in a male supremacist society wherein only men apparently ‘create children’ and a woman’s role is to ‘have the man’s child’ this in itself means that if a woman ‘dares to have another man’s child’ (sic) she is supposedly committing the gravest offence possible to male supremacists. Note too that women do not play a part in reproduction apart that is from carrying the ‘man’s child’ until such time as birth because male supremacy/patriarchy always claims that only men have children (sic) and only men create the foetus.
This means of course that Tyler’s claim he ‘was provoked’ is logical and rational because yet again it is the woman’s fault for ‘provoking’ the male and causing him to murder her (should be commit manslaughter).
I’ve no doubt the jury decided to use discretion in that they discounted Tyler’s history of violence against women because this is supposedly a separate issue from the central one – male ownership of women’s children. Because the worst crime a woman can commit is to engage in infidelity, whereas for men it is perceived as nothing exceptional. That is why women are still viewed as men’s property once a woman marries or enters a long-term heterosexual relationship.
Then there is the fact the police once again engaged in minimalisation and excuses, because the violence Tyler committed was not apparently sufficiently serious to warrant any action be taken in respect of ensuring the late Julie McKinley’s safety or right to not to be subjected to serial male violence from Tyler.
So I pose the question – why did not Ronald Tyler leave the relationship since the relationship was obviously not succeeding. Why did Tyler believe Ms. McKinley was his personal property and therefore he was entitled to commit violence against her with impunity? Answer – because he is male and this in itself supposedly justified his right to maintain control and domination over Ms. McKinley. Back once again to our male supremacist society and by the way, juries are not objective neutral beings, who supposedly examine all the evidence in an impartial and objective manner.
Juries like all of us have no choice but to live in the male supremacist system and like all of us, are subjected to myths concerning pseudo male ownership of women and whilst some of us work very hard to dismantle these lies, unfortunately many men and women believe these lies are ‘truths.’ Ergo: Ms. McKinley was responsible for her own murder because she supposedly ‘provoked’ Tyler. Note too, women continue to be denied ‘provocation’ as a justification for murdering their violent male partners/ex partners because male supremacy claims that women are not human but men’s property.
Jennifer –
“So I pose the question – why did not Ronald Tyler leave the relationship since the relationship was obviously not succeeding.”
That’s a fair and reasonable question. I’d imagine – speculating from what I’ve read – that Tyler is a bully. Someone deeply insecure, who has learned (or been taught through abusive experience of his own) that violence is an acceptable and successful way of imposing himself on the world and making himself feel important. Unfortunately, there are lots of men like that. They feel powerless deep down, but exert themselves on others to feel bigger and better. They do it with men, when they can get away with it (but rarely risk it when they can’t). They do it behind closed doors with their partners. Some women do it too, in my experience, but I think it’s a very male phenomenon.
When you say this, though –
“Poor Tyler his female partner (aka his sexual property) dared to have a child wherein Tyler was not the biological father”
– I think you’re going too far.
In such a situation – spitefully informed by their partner that the child they’d raised was not theirs – most “reasonable” men would feel astonishingly angry, inadequate, hurt, embarrassed, confused, betrayed and belittled. Not because of “male supremacy”, a term that applies high-level rather than to individuals, but due to the emotional contract of committing to someone, believing them, and having that shown not only to be worthless, but laughable and foolish.
A reasonable person, obviously, wouldn’t get the red mist and be violent. When faced with such a comment, or an equivalent betrayal, a reasonable person might say: “If that’s true, you’re the lowest of the low. Great. Glad I wasted however many years of my life with you.” In time, that might become: “You weren’t happy with me, you were trying to make yourself happy – all the best”.
Tyler got the wrong verdict in my opinion. But for Christ’s sake: reading your comment, it sounds like you don’t think cheating on a guy and having another man’s baby should bother that guy at all. You don’t think the only objection that guy could have is one of “ownership”, do you? It’s “partnership”, surely.
Oy Valerie, it’s my turn for the brain cell!
It’s saying the jurors should be fucking ashamed of themselves I object to. I do not believe that anyone posting on this site is qualified in any way, shape or form to pass that sort of judgment.
But by holding this opinion Anon aren’t you um – passing judgement?
Time to revive this I fancy
PS are you related to QRG at all? you both seem to have a similar rhetorical style…..
In such a situation – spitefully informed by their partner that the child they’d raised was not theirs – most “reasonable” men would feel astonishingly angry, inadequate, hurt, embarrassed, confused, betrayed and belittled. Not because of “male supremacy”, a term that applies high-level rather than to individuals, but due to the emotional contract of committing to someone, believing them, and having that shown not only to be worthless, but laughable and foolish.
Fair enough damagedoor if you had (you assumed) a loving relationship with that person and trusted them and that trust was betrayed completely out of the blue. But if you’d spent the previous 16 years knocking seven bells out of someone, don’t you think they’re justified in looking elsewhere?
I say this because a family member of mine had a violent partner who used to beat her up for alleged cheating when she went out. So in the end she thought well if I’m being accused of it, I might as well do it, and started seeing someone else. And eventually left. Anyway her ex started being reasonable again and she went back to collect some stuff and he offered her a lift back. She accepted. Big mistake. He stopped the car, produced a large hammer, said ‘I’m going to kill you’ and smashed her in the back of the head. She managed to get the door open, they were near a pub and ran for help. When she went to hospital the doctor said she’d been amazingly lucky (well it’s all relative) as she’d been hit on the thickest part of her skull, an inch lower and the blow would have killed her. When she went to the police station the PC interviewing her said (not unkindly). “Well you do realise don’t you, you’ll be the shit on someone’s shoe in court. You were seeing someone else”.
He got a one year suspended sentence.
I’m not saying women never do this kind of stuff damagedoor, but men do it a hell of a lot more. And I do believe that there’s a society wide belief that women are men’s property (because I’m one of them there feminists). Now obviously anyone can be betrayed by a partner, but the fact that in those situations a man is considered justified in taking violent revenge by a large proportion of society (cf Raoul Moat) and as we can see from my tale above your local friendly PC Plod informs you of this fact does say something. A man who cheats is a lothario or a playboy. A woman who cheats is a slut, bitch, whore, fill in your own adjective. And deserves what’s coming to her.
…duh
*drools*
Polly –
My main disagreement is just with the idea, which Jennifer seemed to present, that a woman telling a guy “Yeah, I cheated on you and that’s not your child” is something that guy could only object to if he felt he ‘owned’ the woman. That’s not the case. It’s not to justify a violent reaction, but being pissed off isn’t necessarily about male supremacy so much as being human.
I agree with everything else you say, I think. Not sure about attitudes about male vs female cheating. They’re not mine, and they don’t match my experience, but I recognise the attitudes you’re suggesting.
http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/topstories/8347437.Abusive_husband_jailed_indefinitely_for_strangling_wife_at_Stroud_Green_home/
fuxake! A minimum of eight years!! is that all!!!!!
If I had murdered all the people who pushed my buttons I dont suppose for a moment that I would be given the courts leniency.
I am sick to the teeth of judges and juries condoning the heinous actions of men who show no control, effectively men are being given a pat on the head for murdering women.
Yep, he got one of those “newfangled IPP sentences” just as Court Reporter predicted upthread.
Sentencing guidelines for provocation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/29/law.topstories3
Your blog doesnt’ like my link Cath (keeps vanishing it) so – did you see this.
Can the state force a mentally disabled woman to use contraception? How should a judge decide whether a woman in an abusive relationship has the capacity to make decisions about her own body? What is the role played by other people when we make a decision for ourselves?
Recent weeks have seen the first spate of judicial rulings under the landmark Mental Capacity Act. The act was adopted by parliament in 2005, and came into effect in 2007, but it is only now that the first cases are testing key provisions of the new legal world it establishes.
The disturbing case of Mrs A explores troubling questions about procreation and power in the context of mental disability and domestic violence. It raises deep and difficult questions about just what it means for individuals to make decisions for themselves.
Mrs A suffers from a significant learning disability; court papers document that her IQ is in the bottom one percentile of adults of her age.
Prior to meeting her husband, she had twice become pregnant. Although she insisted that she would be a good mother, a pre-birth assessment in each instance concluded that she lacked the insight to meet her baby’s needs without intensive support. Under court order, her two infants were removed at birth. After the second pregnancy, Mrs A herself came under a guardianship order and began using contraception, administered by a monthly injection.
Mrs A met Mr A in 2007; they were married in 2008. Mr A also falls in the bottom one percentile in IQ. It soon became clear that the question of children was a vexed one in the relationship. Court documents record that Mrs A told a number of acquaintances that she did not want children; it is evident that Mr A did. Their relationship also seems to have become abusive, with Mrs A regularly reporting that her husband had hit or punched her, or would shout and break household items. At times she was afraid to go home. She showed up at her college showing bruises on her arms.
Mr A became increasingly insistent that Mrs A should not continue her and moreover should not be in touch with representatives of social services. At times he actively prevented her from contact. When social services did come to their place of residence, Mr A prevented them from speaking to Mrs A alone. In Mr A’s presence, Mrs A indicated that she no longer wished to use contraception. She signed a letter, written by Mr A, indicating that she no longer wished to be contacted by social services. She stopped going to college, apparently because Mr A objected to the fact that her course co-ordinator facilitated contact with social services, who he viewed as “interfering in our sex life” and prying into private family affairs.
Finally, the court of protection became involved. Last September, the local authority asked the court to declare that Mrs A lacked the mental capacity to determine, among other things, whether she should be administered with contraceptive devices.
Now I realise it says ‘among other things’ there but why the hell is contraception the chief issue here. As opposed to – a woman with learning disbalities is to all appearances in a highly abusive relationship?
Oh wait there’s a follow up:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7954633/Mother-speaks-out-against-council-over-forced-contraception-bid-on-daughter.html
Aarrghhh.
Mrs A’s mother contacted this newspaper to insist that her daughter and husband are in a loving relationship, and that they manage to live independent lives including doing some charity work despite the council’s claims about her low intelligence.
“He loves her and I know he does, otherwise he wouldn’t have married her,” she said.
Thanks for that Polly. And yeah, arghhhh just about sums it up.
Oh, and I’ve no idea why your comments didn’t go through – you’re spam apparently 🙂
LOL!
Maybe abusive men could go to dramatic chipmunk for help? Because he sure cured me of my urge to punch a couple of people.
I’d like to add to the comments posted on the issue of the sentencing of ronald tyler. It is sickening, the fact that someone strangles a person to death and is sentenced for manslaughter… he murdered that lady!!! and believe me he meant it! I have unregretably witnessed first hand what this man is capable of. He is a bully! A violent, bully who takes great pleasure in abusing women…and women only… as he has no balls to stand up to any man. He is a sad individual and deserves life for finally taking someone elses! it was inevitable in my opinion and unfortunately the poor children are the ones left behind now to suffer. My thoughts are with the family and children at this time. The bully finally got what he wanted!
Totally agree manslaughter with provocation is a cop out. Please read my brothers story www,letvictimsofmurderedlovedonesappealmanslaughterconvictions,co,uk and please sign the petition
No wonder why no one believes in the justice system, why the hell is this violent, cruel man allowed to be set free, he is an animal and should be locked up and the key thrown away as he is a danger to women, we are not safe!! I am one of those women so I know