|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:11 PM October 8th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Battered Woman Syndrome has apparently become much more than just a viable defense strategy when females murder males. Through case law BWS is is now recognized as part of the generally accepted legal "doctrine of self-defense."
As with common domestic violence charges, all a woman has to allege is that she was "in fear of him." Using BWS successfully means a woman can kill her husband while he's sleeping and walk out of court a free person.
A very revealing article about how lawyers use BWS in court can be found at -
http://www.hwylaw.com/CM/Articles/Articles73.asp
BATTERED WOMAN'S SYNDROME: TRIAL TACTICS
BY DAVID L. RAYBIN
(Excerpts) -
In preparing a BWS case for trial the earliest stages are probably most important. It is critical that you gather as much evidence as possible before it is lost forever.
- Obtain the 911 call recording: Typically, the woman will have called the police after killing her abuser. These calls are recorded, but are routinely erased after 30 days or so. You need to get these tapes secured immediately because they often contain the voice of your hysterical client which shows her state of mind immediately after the act.
- Take photographs of your client, especially evidence of bruises or injuries. Photograph the condition of the home, and the refrigerator. (BWS victims often have little food…)
- The abuser is usually a heavy drinker and was probably intoxicated at the time of his death. Be certain a blood test was run on the deceased to establish this fact.
- It is critical that you establish early in the game any prior instances of abuse which are witnessed by other persons. (Neighbor’s accounts and any hospital records of prior injuries are important.)
- Once you have started the initial investigation it is imperative to associate some expert. This is necessary because your client needs psychological counseling, and, of course, your expert will be testifying at trial.
- Immerse yourself in BWS case law: These cases establish that BWS is almost universally accepted, not as a "defense", but as part of the doctrine of self-defense so as to establish the belief of the woman that she was in danger of death or bodily injury.
- Another important goal will be to convince the jury of the magnitude of this problem. No lesser authority than the United States Supreme Court has observed that almost four million women are the victims of severe assaults by their male partners every year.
- During jury selection it is important to ask the jurors what they know about BWS. You will be amazed at how many people have neighbors or relatives who have been abused by their spouses. Not only will this help you target favorable jurors, but you will also get all of the other jurors understanding how common a problem this really is.
- Opening statements are critical. Here, you must commit to your defense and tell the jury in no uncertain terms that your client will testify. Your defense is not BWS. Rather, your defense is and always will be self-defense. You must make this clear at all times. BWS is worth, at most, a click down from perhaps murder one to murder two. Self-defense is what wins the case. Even if your client killed her abuser while he was asleep, you must show that she was deathly afraid of him at the time.
(posted by roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:24 PM October 8th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, looks like you can kill your husband in the UK and get treated like a victim anyway. Are men out there aware of this?
--------------------------
actual quotes from the article...sic...
The knife, which had an eight-and-a-half blade entered his chest. She had not meant to seriously hurt Mr Keningale, the court heard.
Peter Murphy, in mitigation, said: "This is as close to an accident as it is possible to come."
He said his clients remorse was genuine and heartfelt and she remained in love with her late husband, but displayed features of "battered wives' syndrome".
Sentencing her, Judge John Griffith Williams QC said: "You were truly and genuinely shocked by what happened."
She gave her a three-year community rehabilitation order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by DeepThought
(deep.42.thought@gmailEARTH.com)
on 11:22 AM October 9th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"Knife... in torso... BAD?"
I honestly find it incredible and gape-worthy that *anybody* can accept that it was an accident. What, was she just innocently waving a eight-inch-bladed knife around, and it happened to slip into her husband's chest? Or maybe she just planned on inflicting a MINOR would by STABBING HIM IN THE CHEST WITH A KNIFE.
Even if she didn't intend to kill him, she obviously has bad decision-making skills and doesn't understand how the real world works. Being a danger to others through ignorance isn't less of a danger than a malicious person is.
"...sorry, officer, I only meant to SUPERFICIALLY harm that kid with my car..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:57 PM October 9th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
*Thundercloud just shakes head*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 07:30 AM October 10th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
This reminds me of the Sarah Thornton case; another woman-gets-off-scott-free UK legal case from the 1990s. She stabbed her husband, Trevor, while - she claimed - helping him up from the couch, where he lay drunk, to go to bed. Her exact words were that while helping him up she 'found that she had stabbed him'! The testimony of Trevor's former wives and girlfriends that he was not an abusive man fell on deaf ears (or feminist ears, which are pretty much the same thing).
This issue of men being drunk or asleep is interesting. You may also remember the case of a man who was murdered during an S&M sex game. This goes to the root of so-called 'battered woman syndrome'; that it is pre-meditated murder, not something done in the heat of the moment. A man who commits pre-meditated murder goes to prison for a long time. Absolving women of that responsibility involved the invention of an argument for 'teleological self-defence'; that is, killing someone because of what they might do to you in the future, not because of something they are trying to do to you now. It is yet another example of the corruption of reason required by feminism (and all Marxist-type ideologies).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This type of thing happens more than most realize. A man was stabbed in NH last week and the defense will be " that she didn't think that the knife would penetrate when she stabbed him" and she is not even claiming that it was self defense!
Lee Newman
Founding Executive Director:SAFE-NH
P O Box 523, Rochester,NH 03867
Phone:603-859-0859
Fax: 603-297-024
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:26 AM October 11th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
M is for Malevolent is all over this, with a re-write of the basic facts to flip the genders that will make your eyes pop out.
quote from his site:
"I find it very unlikely that anyone would see a 43-year old man as the victim, or even as an accidental murderer under the above circumstances. Instead the media would be on him as someone who 'got rid of' his 'troublesome' wife, instead of divorcing her. His tears and claims of her shouting would be laughed off, as they should be irregardless of the gender of the murderer. And he would be in jail for a long, long time.
In this case, the real victim, murdered in his golden years, by a much younger spouse, ends up named 'abuser', while the murderer happily assumes the mantle of victim. If it were not for the mind-bogglingly biased nature of the courts the facts could never support this verdict, or the BBC's treatment of it."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 10:01 AM October 9th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Has there ever in the whole history of Western jurisprudence (within the last 25 years) of a man killing his wife and and being found not guilty upon a verdict of self-defense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:21 PM October 10th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
...and it's probably getting annoying, by now, but Western women ARE the "007 gender." (Licensed to kill)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:43 AM October 11th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Yet again, the one person who may be able to contest the accusation of "frequent verbal abuse" is dead.
Testimony in court was that the couple had "few friends". Where therefore, is the overwhelming evidence, corroborated through independent witnesses?
Oh, there isn't any? It doesn't matter though - BWS is so accepted now that the courts are literally scared not to take it seriously.
The final indignity is that unlike actual physical violence, there are no bodily marks and no records of visits to hospital for treatment. What we have then is the perfect crime. Claim verbal abuse and with almost no requirement for corroboration and no way of physically checking for damage, you have a get out of jail free card.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "