This is so shocking, it is almost impossible to write a lucid comment without anger being part of same. Truly shameful. Please tell me this never happened. But if this report is the absolute truth, then I am totally speechless but would certainly stand up and say “WRONG SIR….VERY VERY WRONG!”

I understand the strong feelings being expressed here. I think, though, that women need to understand and appreciate that a man’s money is as sacred to him as a woman’s body is to her and that his emotions regarding his money are as strong as her emotions regarding her body. I am not suggesting that his actions were in any way justified. I am suggesting, however, that women should stop the practice of befriending men for the sole purpose of solving financial problems.

It is sometimes best to understand what underpinned a decision made in Law; it gives us a better focus to the issue at hand.

” In English Law, provocation is a mitigatory defence alleging a total loss of control as a response to another’s provocative conduct sufficient to convert what would otherwise have been murder to manslaughter. It does not apply to any other offence.”

Under Section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957:

“Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person charged was provoked ( whether by things done or by things said or both together) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury; and in determining that question the jury shall take into account everything both done and said according to the effect which, in their opinion, it would have on a reasonable man.”

“The initial burden is on the defence to raise sufficient evidence of provocation. As a matter of law, the judge will then decide whether to leave the defence to the jury. This does not change the burden of proof which, as in all criminal cases, is on the prosecution to prove the actus reus and mens rea of the offence charged, i.e. murder.”

“The Act provided that provocation can be anything done or said without it having to be an illegal act and the provoker and the deceased can be third parties.”

(see Davies (1957) QB 691)”

@Yardbroom

Thanks for the position. If you were DPP would you have sent this matter to trial?

@Yardbroom….so would not the man in this case be the first one to do the act of provocation? i.e. She needs money, he provokes by saying he will lend it to her in her obvious desperation. She comes to collect, he then provokes again by adding sex to the matter. In desperation she has no choice and decides to do the deed but in a sane moment realizes that this is not the way to go. She has not provoked him in any way. He has provoked her all the way. But yet she is the one murdered, she is dead, she cannot speak and tell what really happened, she is no longer, she is leaves behind those who loved her to mourn, to grieve for ever. He, that provoking nasty man, whose only provocation has been his own on his middle leg, gets to go to jail for manslaughter and to be out in no real time at all to perhaps bat all over again! Ahh….but the law is an ass. And whatever way you look at it says ‘a lot’ for the men who think this is okay…the usual “we think with our d***ks” and, therefore, we are. Joyous times ladies.

@Freeman…unfortunately as long as men are more financially stable than women, and use their “d***s” for collateral…there is little choice for many of them. Sad to say. However, put that little information aside and let me ask you a question….If you begged a man to lend you some money, would he have in the back of his mind to lend in to you with sex in return? Most probably not. And his “d**k” would remain in its place without ‘provocation’ as has been touted to be the BIG problem here.

This whole matter is ludicrous and this murderer needs to be punished accordingly, and manslaughter does not augur well with me or (I hope) all the women in Barbados!

Really now, I am not commenting on rather the Dpp is right or wrong,I am no lawyer, I don’t know law, I working with common sense and observation.

Is there a law to protect men from women who promise sex for money yet has no intention of giving sex?

It seams The laws are only set up to punish the physically violent acts in all relationships, like beatings. Witch are the end results of transactions where someone feels cheated. The evidence is usually there, physically, so the job is easy and I think the law does a very good job in dealing with these matters.

I am commenting on what I think is the “better approach”. One where the act can be stopped before it gets physical. Where a male has rights to get return on investment. Or legally seek reimbursement.

After all, we all work hard for money. Should some members of society be allowed to intentionally, maliciously deceive others out of hard earn cash? This is 2011 where every adult has the right and responsibility to work for money, why should a particular section of those adults be allowed to trick other adults without fear of being prosecuted by law further more they are being protected by law.

All decent women would agree with me, the attitude being displayed by some less decent women needs to be curved.

Again I am not saying the Dpp is wrong or right I don’t know the particulars of the case, I am making a general observation that is related to the topic of the tread.

I agree that provocation in this case, is not good grounds for a change to manslaughter… I believe that the DPP is being led by personal mores, than by what is good for the public.

I do also agree that women (and men) need to stop playing tricks with each other. Do you really think that the allure of sex did NOT play a role here? Why would he have lent her the money in the first place?

Too many situations have been played out to me about women “using” men and vice versus, for financial or physical means.

My grandmother had a good saying, “Ain’t nothing ever come free”. I think that the Americans have another: “There is not such thing as a free lunch”.

@ Readydone said “Is there a law to protect men from women who promise sex for money yet has no intention of giving sex?”

You are one BIG ASININE MORON. Look at you, trying to justify murder for sex. It is men like you who think that women can be bought and sold, may god help this little piece of rock call Barbados. How can you ask such a question? Prostitution is against the law as far as I know. And here you are wanting the Law to protect a law breaker. WHICH PLANET ARE YOU ON? Go jump in de latrine whey yuh belong!

What am I missing? According to the writer
• The woman was coerced into providing sex in exchange for money
• Prior to consummating the act the woman changed her mind
• The other party becomes enraged and beats her to death
• The prosecution accepts a manslaughter plea on the basis that the man was “provoked” and any reasonable jury would reach the same conclusion

Something is missing perhaps I am naïve but perhaps in Barbados “No doesn’t mean No”

Those of us who have read law in university know that the “LAW” is a “jackass” – and those who interpret this man-made discipline through their individual practice are equally asinine…

It is remarkable what the so-called “LEGAL FRATERNITY” is able to get away with given that society is supposed to have all these checks and balances…

Barbados is NOT* exempt from the machinations of disheveled minds armed with a license and a bad legal wig…

Late last year this case in NY caused outrage when a “JUDGE” decided on a ‘outrageously lenient’ punishment for a confessed rapist who sexual violated [3] teen girls under his care…

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/09/28/2010-09-28_teen_sex_case_judge_blasted.html#ixzz1AjTG7l1b

I GUESS “RESISTANCE” IS FUTILE IN THE CURRENT GLOBAL CLIMATE!!!

What a joke…

Hi David
In a case as delicate as this one obviously is, I would need more information than is presently available in the media.

The DPP ( Director of Public Prosecutions) takes a decision on the basis that he will get a verdict in his favour, or if he feels it is in the Public interest to prosecute.

Hi Rosemary Parkinson
I have stated a Legal position, without taking sides; the reasons I have outlined to David above.

Hi peltdownman
I have not stated a position. Quote:” So why not leave it to the jury?”

I can only say the DPP is in a position to read all the “evidence” a position not afforded to me.

This one of the saddest cases of a miscarriage of Justice. The story is about a desperate hungry woman seeking money for rent.

She met this man and they exchanged numbers. She asked him for money, he knew that she was vulnerable and demanded sex in exchange.

This desperate woman saw no way out and reluctantly agreed. She was hungry when she came to his house, he made her some food. He knew he had her good and went to make preparations. She felt obliged to let him have his way with her. As she was in the process of complying with his demands, she had a change of heart, perhaps deep down she was disgusted with herself for allowing herself to be used like this. She told him that she changed her mind and tried to leave even without the money.

She was prevented from leaving and was beaten unconscious. Seeing her unconscious and bloody body was not enough for him, he then decided to get a screwdriver and kill her. That was when he made a conscious decision to commit murder.

He then planned how he was going to dispose of the body. Like a professional he dumped her body using his neighbour’s vehicle. He then scattered her belongings at several points to avoid detection. Has this man done this before? He lied when questioned and when cell phone records proved that he was the last person to speak to her, he was cornered like a rat. Isn’t this not Murder?

Too many are blaming the murdered woman for her lack of morals and sympathizing with the man. Is this justice? Who is speaking for the dead woman? Is it her fault that she is dead today?

We have become fanatical in our beliefs and common sense is scarce in supply. Just look how Jippy Doyle became a free man after brutally raping a 13 year old.

Somethings have gone awry with this country. Where is the outcry? Where is the Attorney General on this?

@Yardbroom…I understand that you stated legal side…but surely what I stated should also be a legal side…that is all I meant. @islandgal246 – Exactly!

@ David: Thank you – I will look to revert to FireFox; the new version seems to be as fast as Chome is now.

Readytalkshitedone

Please stop putting your foot in your mouth! You cannot erase what you have written. You have exposed yourself to all the type of inhumane low life you are.

@IWatchya, my apologies. I meant readydone.

Readydone – Men like you who go around trying to fool people that your male rights are being OH SO violated because of what women have between their legs always make me laugh. Please can you show me all the actual real-life cases in Barbados where men are being marginalized, murdered, violated, disenfranchised, in fear of their lives, etc. because women won’t give them what they are paying for?
I suppose all these men who didn’t get the sex that they paid for – a woman held a gun to their heads and made them pay for sex to begin with? You know how men like you think women are to blame for just about everything (LOL!)
We are actually dealing with an actual case here, not supposed scenarios made up by you in an obvious attempt to deflect from the real issue at hand and to display your subtle animosity towards women.

You said: “How comes women always say that they have no other choice but to take money for giving sex? There is always labor work, remember, equal rights for all the sexes. ”
Wow, way to display both your class AND male privilege. Do you think women are only violated in the sex industry and not in conventional professions too? And if women DO make the conscious choice to engage in sex work, as some do, what – that gives men the right to MURDER them?
When the shopkeeper doesn’t give me my groceries that I paid for, that then gives me the right to murder him too?

Islandgal246 just gave a pretty accurate commentary on the case at hand – why don’t you read it and comment on that?

Hi Rosemary Parkinson
MayI preface my remarks again; I am not in a position to defend the DPP, without the evidence of this case.

Rosemary Parkinson January 11, 2011 at 11:46 am
“@ Yardbroom….I understand that you stated legal side….but surely what I stated should also be a legal side. . . that is all I want”.

Then may I return to your earlier submission:
January 11, 2011 at 8:24am
“Yardbroom…so would not the man in this case be the first one to do the act of provocation?i.e. She needs money, he provokes by saying he will lend it to her in her obvious desperation”.
******************************************
If the above is “provocation” all the banks in Barbados who offer to lend money to desperate people are in for a rough time from the Law, for their provocation.

A woman has lost her life, which is sad under any circumstances and I am sure most”reasonable men and women” would accept that position. The man thus convicted should feel the full weight of the Law as the Tariff allows. I will not use this sad case for either man/woman insults. As far as I am aware no one on this blog has murdered anyone.
**************************************
What I now refer has no bearing directly on this case as far as I am aware, but I mention it only to emphasize “No” and no.

” A Jury in a rape trial was entitled to a straight answer when it asked whether a woman could withdraw her consent after sexual intercourse began, the Court of Special Appeals held yesterday”.

The question was not ambiguous – and the answer was no, Judge Arrie W. Davis wrote for the unanimous three – judge appeal.

“Maryland has never abandoned the common-law tenet under which, “if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape.”

Hi Christopher Halsall
January 11, 2011 @ 1:58pm
Quote “Might there be other precedents in other jurisdictions which argue differently?”

Of course there might be, just quote them to support any opinion on this “specific” point.

Quote:” And would not the question of did the penetrator stop the action upon request of the penetrated come into the equation/decision?”

If he did, then there is no dispute. He complied with the request.

Rapist Policeman Stephen Mitchell Jailed For Life…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12163901

“Violence against women cannot be tolerated, in any form, in any context, in any circumstance, by any political leader or by any Government. The time to change is now.” Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary General, 2009

Dear A. Freeman:

You cannot equate a life with money.

And since it was clearly a financial transaction once the woman had changed her mind all the man had to do was to put his money back in his pocket and show the woman the door.

He would have saved his freedom and her life.

Simple so.

I am not suggesting that you could equate money with life, nor am I saying that the end result on this occasion could in anyway be justified. However, better decisions are made if what is likely to happen, as opposed to what should happen, is considered. Men have very strong emotions about their money and women about their bodies and who they share it with. Generally, if women were to stop the practice of befriending men solely for financial reasons, they would likely avoid much abuse. Do women really understand the mental impact, for example, on a man when he discovers, after many years, that he was intentionally made to support a child that was not his only because he was thought to be financially a better father? These actions equate to abusing men.

A Freeman you are talking pure unadulterated crap. You are sooo narrow and bitter that you come across as an abuser of women.

Do men understand when the children he has fathered and never supported are abused by the men who supported them and their mothers? Do they understand the the mental impact on the abused child he has neglected and disowned because he didn’t want to pay child support for?

Thank god many women today do not need a man for financial support nor do they need them for shelter. Many men can only measure their worth by the amount of money they have and the number of women they can attract. Times have changed and women have become independent men have lost their way.

They have become very angry that they are no longer the financial benefactor and controller of women. Many feel if they beat a woman into submission the woman would love them and obey them. And if she dies as a result of the beating she deserves it.

Freeman you are a wicked and cruel individual.

@A. Freeman: “Christopher, you are assuming that the man has a reason to be suspicious.

Incorrect.

I’m pointing out that the man has the ability to cheaply determine the truth if he wishes to.

This is in direct response to your claiming that men are taken advantage of by women who claim their children are the man’s rather than another man’s.

No?

It baffles me how with matters like this happening, political parties on a election campaign, could be focussing on little matters like those being mentioned by both the BLP and the DLP. How can the DLP be running a LADY in this election and allowing the same gender to be dragged to the lowest pit in this country? How can the BLP not use this matter are a weapon against the DLP? Mass politican meetings have degenerated to trash talking public meetings, the serious matters are kept quite betwwen the parties, what they do is just for public show. The BLP/DLP SAME PARTY, different leadership/ members/ diehard supporters/ yardfowls. Politics in Barbados is becoming stragnant.