Woman 'executed' partner with axe

Started by Pernicious, Mar 25, 2004, 11:55 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Pernicious

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1923597.stm

Quote
Thursday, 11 April, 2002, 17:10 GMT 18:10 UK
Woman 'executed' partner with axe

A woman has admitted killing her businessman partner who was found dead in the bedroom of their home with an axe in his head.
Danny O'Brien, 40 - who had been struck 20 times - was found naked, blindfolded and gagged, a jury at Leeds Crown Court was told.

Jan Charlton denies murdering Mr O'Brien at the home they shared, claiming she killed him because he threatened to kill both her and her four-year-old daughter.

But prosecutor Paul Worsley QC told the court Mr O'Brien was "executed" by Ms Charlton because she knew their "bizarre" sexual relationship was coming to an end.

Danny O'Brien was found dead in his bedroom

Mr Worsley told the jury that Ms Charlton had been a former escort girl when she began a relationship with Mr O'Brien in September 2000.

He said: "Her relationship with Danny O'Brien offered her daughter security, financial stability, and you may think, luxury.

"Both the defendant and Danny O'Brien were highly sexed and both enjoyed an intense, and you may think, bizarre sex life. They appear to have been well suited."

Mr O'Brien's body was discovered at his large detached home at Midgley, near Wakefield, West Yorkshire, on 23 May 2001.

He had been hit more than 20 times with a large double-handed axe.

Sex toys

Mr Worsley told the jury Ms Charlton was a "callous killer and consummate actress".

Ms Charlton originally claimed to have discovered the body when she returned home to meet her ex-husband Tony who was due to pick up her daughter, the court heard.

But about five weeks after the murder she went to a police station and admitted killing him with the axe.

She told detectives she found the axe in a dressing room off the master bedroom and attacked Mr O'Brien after he said he intended to molest her daughter.

According to Mr Worsley, Ms Charlton blindfolded, handcuffed and used sex toys to try and calm Mr O'Brien down before striking him.

Self-defence

Mr Worsley said she told detectives: "Do you not understand? There was no way he was going to have my daughter and to get me."

He said she told the interviewers: "Danny fell to the floor then I just hit him and hit him and I'm just so shocked because everybody's saying I hit him 20 times."

Robert Smith, defending, formally admitted on behalf of Ms Charlton that she killed Mr O'Brien.

He said: "On behalf of Janet Charlton it is formally admitted that Janet Charlton killed Daniel O'Brien using the axe which was discovered embedded in his body.

He then told the jury they had to decide first, whether she was acting in "lawful self-defence" and then, if not, whether she was provoked.

The case continues.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2002559.stm

Quote
Monday, 27 May, 2002, 14:43 GMT 15:43 UK
Axe killer not guilty of murder

Charlton claimed she was provoked to kill

A former escort girl who killed her lover with an axe at their West Yorkshire home has been cleared of murder.
Janet Charlton, 36, wept and mouthed "sorry" to the public gallery as she was found guilty of manslaughter and jailed for five years.

The verdict came on the fourth day of deliberations at Leeds Crown Court.

Charlton admitted inflicting 20 blows to the head and shoulders of Danny O'Brien, but denied murder - claiming she acted in self defence when Mr O'Brien threatened to kill her and abuse and kill her three-year-old daughter.

'Extremely depraved'

Judge Norman Jones QC, the Recorder of Leeds, said she had committed a "grave offence" which left him with no choice but to give her a custodial sentence.

Mr O'Brien, 40, was found lying naked, gagged, blindfolded and handcuffed in bedroom of their house in Midgley, Wakefield, on 23 May 2001.

He still had the axe sticking out of his head.

The judge told Charlton: "You lost your self-control.

"You were imbued with the desire to kill or cause very serious bodily injury to Danny O'Brien.

"He was a flawed man - having sexual proclivities described by Professor Eastman as extremely depraved.

Promiscuous practices

"I am satisfied that he introduced you to some of these practices although to keep him happy you were quite happy to go along with them.

"Your own attitude to sex was relaxed if not promiscuous and you were more ready to indulge in these practices than others may have been."

The prosecution told the court Charlton killed Mr O'Brien as an action of "revenge" because he intended to end their relationship and return to his former girlfriend.

But during her trial the court heard that Charlton told police her partner had boasted to her about being a child killer.

She said he had threatened her daughter Amy and he had "killed kids before".

"He's a dangerous man and I knew 100% that he would if he got her [Amy]," Charlton told detectives.

Defence witnesses also told the court Charlton had become the victim of "Battered Woman Syndrome".

Professor Nigel Eastman, who spent more than five hours assessing Charlton in February this year, told the court this was why she "flipped" and hacked Mr O'Brien to death.

He said: "He [Mr O'Brien] was a man who was deeply abnormal and unpredictable."

In his summing-up Judge Jones told the jurors that they had three choices of verdicts.

They could find Charlton guilty of murdering Danny O'Brien, convict her of manslaughter on the grounds of provocation, or acquit her if they believed she was acting in lawful self-defence.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2736343.stm

Quote
Friday, 7 February, 2003, 12:26 GMT
Axe killer's sentence reduced

The jury concluded that Charlton was provoked


A former escort girl who killed her lover with an axe at their West Yorkshire home has had her sentenced reduced by the Court of Appeal.
Janet Charlton, 36, was convicted of the manslaughter of 41-year-old Danny O'Brien in her trial at Leeds Crown Court in May 2002.

Charlton, who was not present at the appeal hearing, inflicted at least 20 blows to Mr O'Brien's skull and shoulders with a fireman's axe.

Appeal court judges Mr Justice Jackson and Mr Justice Elias said they thought her five-year jail term for manslaughter was "excessive".

Early release

The decision to cut her sentence to three-and-a-half years could mean Charlton will be released in a few months time.

Her solicitor Carl Kingsley said after the hearing: "It was an excellent result. She will be very pleased. It is a very compassionate sentence."

During her seven week trial, Leeds Crown Court heard how Mr O'Brien was found lying naked, gagged, handcuffed and blindfolded in the bedroom of their house in Midgley, Wakefield, on 23 May 2001.

The 2ft long axe was still sticking out of his head.

Extreme provocation

Judge Norman Jones QC told Charlton that she had committed a "grave offence" which left him no choice but to sentence her for a "significant" number of years.

The jury rejected her claim she had killed Danny O'Brien in self defence after he threatened to kill her three-year-old daughter.

But they concluded that she was provoked through months of sexual demands.

The prosecution had alleged that Charlton killed him in "revenge" because he intended to return to a former girlfriend.

At the appeal hearing it was argued that the trial judge failed to give sufficient credit for points that could be made in mitigation, including her age, previous good character, and the "extreme" provocation.

Her counsel, John Elvidge, said she was a devoted and caring mother who was no risk to the community "or any given individual".

He added that the "unique" case merited a significantly lesser term of imprisonment.
 do what I need to do to protect my loved ones, friends, and family. This is what men do.

dr e

Unreal.

Here's what she did:

Quote
The 2ft long axe was still sticking out of his head.



ANd here's the judicial response!

Quote
The decision to cut her sentence to three-and-a-half years could mean Charlton will be released in a few months time.

Her solicitor Carl Kingsley said after the hearing: "It was an excellent result. She will be very pleased. It is a very compassionate sentence."

During her seven week trial, Leeds Crown Court heard how Mr O'Brien was found lying naked, gagged, handcuffed and blindfolded in the bedroom of their house in Midgley, Wakefield, on 23 May 2001.



For women we seek compassion.  For men we seek punishment.  Some equality. :roll:
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Odysseus

Here is the part that gets me:

Quote
"He was a flawed man - having sexual proclivities described by Professor Eastman as extremely depraved.  


Wait, she participated consensually in their sex acts, so why isn't she "depraved" also?? The story does not indicate that he forced her...

steveb

Same same

works every time

after all its not like he can defend himself is it

naked, handcuffed and threatening?

knowing the stats on DV, I would love to hear one. . .just one case of a male even attempting to use the same-same excuse. . .yet alone get away with it.  yet there thousands or probably tens of thousand of females using this excuse to kill.  This was surely pre-meditated.

If a male did this he would serve several life sentences or be executed. . .no doubt about it. . .no excuses period.

And I love the if they have sex toys, and have sex often then HE must be depraved.

One needs to be only so "aware" to never commit or marry ever again!!!
But thats ok, however when one becomes to "aware" will one even date?  Maybe this kinda explains the date-commit-marriage strike thing.  Dunno
s the sleeping giant awakes

LSBeene

I don't buy the "depraved" part, the "coerced" part, or the part about her daughter at all.

I'm pretty logical at picking apart bullsh*t.  Let me run this by you guys and see how my logic flies on this one:

1) Depraved:  The two of them used bondage and toys.  So the hell what?!  Lots of people do.  People use costumes, roleplaying, video cameras, internet porn, and about a million other fetishes.  I bet that you pick any 10 people off the street at random and 1-3 of them have done or are doing some kinky sh*t at home.  EVERYONE has their preferences.  This "depraved" argument is just like when defense attorney's used to say that women wearing black panties were asking for rape.  It's was a sham then and it's a sham now.

2) Coerced:  Let me get this straight.  He was a rich guy.  She was a call girl.  I will GUESS (total speculation) that he wasn't her first john, and she wasn't his first call girl.  So, two people were sexually compatible and made a longer arrangement.  I suspect he may have mentioned the "M" word to her.  I don't know this, but it fits.  At the very least he probably promised to make her a mistress for the long term.  He then reneged.  Again, total speculation, but it fits.  But I doubt very much that they went this far down the road with each other sexually with her being a coerced and victimized woman (oh I hate the sex, but the apartment is nice!?).  It wouldn't have gotten as far as it did if she wasn't a "fun and willing" partner to his sexual desires.  That DOESN'T fit.  Maybe he reneged on this promise, maybe she started acting like an entitled wife and not a mistress, but either way, she wasn't coerced.

3) Self/Daughter Defense: I need to use a quote here to make my point:
Quote
She told detectives she found the axe in a dressing room off the master bedroom and attacked Mr O'Brien after he said he intended to molest her daughter.

According to Mr Worsley, Ms Charlton blindfolded, handcuffed and used sex toys to try and calm Mr O'Brien down before striking him.


Ok, I think I can damn near PROVE this is bullshit.  Not just speculate per se, but damn near prove it with those two sentences.

This is a classic case of making up a story afterwards and not mentally walking yourself through the lie to check for validity.  I said PROVE. Ok, let's go:

-- Let's assume she is telling the truth.  He tells her he wants to molest her daughter.  Or is it kill?  Because she claimed both.  Lets picture that he says he wants sex with the daughter.  Her response was obviously no.  But she says he was SO incensed that he threatens to kill her and her daughter.  Instead he, who according to her was so dangerous and violent and needed to die due to the force of his threats --- he meekly takes the submissive role and is bound, gagged, and blindfolded?!  Look folks, either he is in a rage and demanding what he wants (control dominatioin posture) or he is not.  But she says he IS in that mode.  So what does he do?  He becomes submissive ?!  (being handcuffed, gagged, and blindfolded is not a dominant action - either he was demanding control and dominence or he was willing to be submissive - the guy is not a light switch)

The daughter was home?  It is unimportant either way to my proof.  If the daughter was HOME and this man was SO intent on having her then why did he consent to being blind folded, gagged, and handcuffed?  Foreplay?  And once he was COMPLETELY HELPLESS ... errr, there is a device called a telephone.  And she would have had to have bound him up, left the room, got the axe (which also implies she felt safe enough to leave him alone), and then murdered a man who probably didn't know what hit him. He never got near the daughter.  In self-defense you have to have imminent danger or a reasonable thought process of the same.  WHERE is it?  And if the daughter was NOT home (the article was unclear) then this whole episode is insane.  

I know that was long, but I had to walk you through it.  Her story makes no sense if you pretend it's a movie and you hit play.   I walk through a person's story and look at it like I am them, and then as a 3rd party (fly on  the wall).  Hers sounds like it was made up after the fact.  AND she had 5 weeks to prepare it for the cops.  Which is really sad.  (but it worked, so what the fuck do I know)

If she is lying, which is pretty clear, then her only OTHER motivation was that "Daddy" was pulling the lolipop on the gravy train and she wasn't going to be tossed aside.  I got one response to her on that: you became his mistress you idiot, not his wife.  He met you when you were either hooking or just after, and the reason he put you up in style was for sex on demand.  Did she really expect that when she was 50 years old he would still be panting at her door?!  Does that sound callous?  Sorry cupcake, but fashion magazines run by women don't hire size 16 models or women who look older than 40.  And your profession was your looks and your sex know how.  P-E-R-I-O-D.

She's lying.  She was getting dumped.  She murdered him with forethough of malice.  And, surprise surprise ... she got off.

Oh, since he was her "partner"( ya gotta love how they harped on that term - partner!?  girl-friend, mistress, whore, lover, sex-toy sure ... but "partner"!? ) did anyone see the words Domestic Violence in ONE of the 3 stories? And, ummm, she sexually used him before death.  While he was unable to resist.  Anyone see a headline: "Domestic Violence, Rape, and Murder end the life of a man unable to reisist."  Wanna bet you would if the genders were reversed?  And in that scenario that the man would have been charged with it too.

Fucking whitewash feminist mastabatory fantasy killing is what it was.

Steven
'Watch our backs at home, we'll guard the wall over here. You can sleep safe tonight, we'll guard the door."

Isaiah 6:8
"Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

Daymar

I decided to have a little bit of fun with this post. Read through it and see if you find it as funny as I did.

--

Monday, 27 May, 2002
Axe killer not guilty of murder

Charlton claimed he was provoked to kill


A former male escort who killed his lover with an axe at their West Yorkshire home has been cleared of murder.
John Charlton, 36, wept and mouthed "sorry" to the public gallery as he was found guilty of manslaughter and jailed for five years.

The verdict came on the fourth day of deliberations at Leeds Crown Court.

Charlton admitted inflicting 20 blows to the head and shoulders of Danielle O'Brien, but denied murder - claiming he acted in self defence when Miss O'Brien threatened to kill him and abuse and kill his three-year-old daughter.

'Extremely depraved'

Judge Norman Jones QC, the Recorder of Leeds, said he had committed a "grave offence" which left him with no choice but to give him a custodial sentence.

Miss O'Brien, 40, was found lying naked, gagged, blindfolded and handcuffed in bedroom of their house in Midgley, Wakefield, on 23 May 2001.

She still had the axe sticking out of her head.

The judge told Charlton: "You lost your self-control.

"You were imbued with the desire to kill or cause very serious bodily injury to Danielle O'Brien.

"She was a flawed woman - having sexual proclivities described by Professor Eastman as extremely depraved.

Promiscuous practices

"I am satisfied that she introduced you to some of these practices although to keep her happy you were quite happy to go along with them.

"Your own attitude to sex was relaxed if not promiscuous and you were more ready to indulge in these practices than others may have been."

The prosecution told the court Charlton killed Miss O'Brien as an action of "revenge" because she intended to end their relationship and return to her former girlfriend.

But during his trial the court heard that Charlton told police his partner had boasted to him about being a child killer.

He said she had threatened his daughter Amy and she had "killed kids before".

"She's a dangerous woman and I knew 100% that she would if she got her [Amy]," Charlton told detectives.

Defence witnesses also told the court Charlton had become the victim of "Battered Man Syndrome".

Professor Nigel Eastman, who spent more than five hours assessing Charlton in February this year, told the court this was why He "flipped" and hacked Miss O'Brien to death.

He said: "She [Miss O'Brien] was a woman who was deeply abnormal and unpredictable."

In his summing-up Judge Jones told the jurors that they had three choices of verdicts.

They could find Charlton guilty of murdering Danielle O'Brien, convict him of manslaughter on the grounds of provocation, or acquit him if they believed he was acting in lawful self-defence.


Friday, 7 February, 2003
Axe killer's sentence reduced

The jury concluded that Charlton was provoked


A former male escort who killed his lover with an axe at their West Yorkshire home has had his sentenced reduced by the Court of Appeal.
John Charlton, 36, was convicted of the manslaughter of 41-year-old Danielle O'Brien in his trial at Leeds Crown Court in May 2002.

Charlton, who was not present at the appeal hearing, inflicted at least 20 blows to Miss O'Brien's skull and shoulders with a fireman's axe.

Appeal court judges Mr Justice Jackson and Mr Justice Elias said they thought his five-year jail term for manslaughter was "excessive".

Early release

The decision to cut his sentence to three-and-a-half years could mean Charlton will be released in a few months time.

His solicitor Carl Kingsley said after the hearing: "It was an excellent result. He will be very pleased. It is a very compassionate sentence."

During his seven week trial, Leeds Crown Court heard how Miss O'Brien was found lying naked, gagged, handcuffed and blindfolded in the bedroom of their house in Midgley, Wakefield, on 23 May 2001.

The 2ft long axe was still sticking out of her head.

Extreme provocation

Judge Norman Jones QC told Charlton that he had committed a "grave offence" which left him no choice but to sentence him for a "significant" number of years.

The jury rejected his claim he had killed Danielle O'Brien in self defence after she threatened to kill his three-year-old daughter.

But they concluded that he was provoked through months of sexual demands.

The prosecution had alleged that Charlton killed her in "revenge" because she intended to return to a former boyfriend.

At the appeal hearing it was argued that the trial judge failed to give sufficient credit for points that could be made in mitigation, including his age, previous good character, and the "extreme" provocation.

His counsel, John Elvidge, said he was a devoted and caring father who was no risk to the community "or any given individual".

He added that the "unique" case merited a significantly lesser term of imprisonment.

LSBeene

You took our usual method and rewrote the whole thing.  Nicely done.  

Now (just kidding) let's go and post it on the MS boards and watch the fur fly.

You did miss a few pro-nouns, but I'm just picky.  :P
'Watch our backs at home, we'll guard the wall over here. You can sleep safe tonight, we'll guard the door."

Isaiah 6:8
"Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

Daymar

Quote from: "LSBeene"
You did miss a few pro-nouns, but I'm just picky.  :P


Where? I re-read it and didn't see anything.

steveb

could one fathom the outcry
s the sleeping giant awakes

tricycle

Quote from: "Odysseus"
Here is the part that gets me:

Quote
"He was a flawed man - having sexual proclivities described by Professor Eastman as extremely depraved.  


Wait, she participated consensually in their sex acts, so why isn't she "depraved" also?? The story does not indicate that he forced her...


That part got me too.

If the genders were reversed - as in Daymars excellent re-write - then this would provoke howls of outrage. With the common thread being accusations of 'victim bashing'.

This man was in no way flawed, the court seems to have come to that conclusion based on the testimony of one man, who may very well have used his personal moral barometer when he made that judgement.
Both participated in the 'games', therefore to point the finger at the victim as being depraved is ridiculous.

Quote
According to Mr Worsley, Ms Charlton blindfolded, handcuffed and used sex toys to try and calm Mr O'Brien down before striking him.


Quote from: "LSBeene"
So what does he do? He becomes submissive ?! (being handcuffed, gagged, and blindfolded is not a dominant action - either he was demanding control and dominence or he was willing to be submissive - the guy is not a light switch)


If the professor who made the ridiculous statement about this man being depraved had any idea about the accepted practices of sub/dom then he would know that the scenario she painted was total crap.
As Steven said - he was either dominant or submissive, not both.
I think that this women panicked when she realised that her 'meal ticket' was about to be cancelled, and murdered this man.
trange little girl ....

NealGold

Hey, if you want to do the mind version of a nipple-tweak to MS'ers, enter the forum with a re-written version of the story:  the murderer is male and the victim, natch, female.  Change the he's to she's, and vice-versa.

Then, after they're all calling for an immediate jihad against all men, post the REAL story...and listen to their repressed souls cry from the torture of bend, torquing and shimming reality to fit a self-indugent, mercenary perversion of truth.
A man conscious of his strength, observes Nietzsche, need have no fear of women. It is only the man who finds himself utterly helpless in the face of feminine cajolery that must cry, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" and flee. The normal, healthy man...still keeps a level head. He is strong enough to weather the sexual storm. But the man who cannot do this, who experiences no normal reaction in the direction of guardedness and caution and reason, must either abandon himself utterly as a helpless slave to woman's instinct of race-preservation, and so become a bestial voluptuary, or avoid temptation altogether and so become a celibate." -- H.L. Mencken on Nietzsche's philosophy of women

Daymar

Quote from: "NealGold"
Hey, if you want to do the mind version of a nipple-tweak to MS'ers, enter the forum with a re-written version of the story:  the murderer is male and the victim, natch, female.  Change the he's to she's, and vice-versa.

Then, after they're all calling for an immediate jihad against all men, post the REAL story...and listen to their repressed souls cry from the torture of bend, torquing and shimming reality to fit a self-indugent, mercenary perversion of truth.


You might want to read my post..

I actually thought of doing that exact thing except that some of them read this board and I'm not sure how well it would work. I've thought about posting this rewritten story to a non gender issues board and then posting the real story a couple months later and judging the difference in reactions.. but I think we all know what would happen anyway. The rewrite is funny because there's no way in hell an article would ever get written like that in a major newspaper.

NealGold

Yep, I should have read it first.
A man conscious of his strength, observes Nietzsche, need have no fear of women. It is only the man who finds himself utterly helpless in the face of feminine cajolery that must cry, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" and flee. The normal, healthy man...still keeps a level head. He is strong enough to weather the sexual storm. But the man who cannot do this, who experiences no normal reaction in the direction of guardedness and caution and reason, must either abandon himself utterly as a helpless slave to woman's instinct of race-preservation, and so become a bestial voluptuary, or avoid temptation altogether and so become a celibate." -- H.L. Mencken on Nietzsche's philosophy of women

LSBeene

Oh, on a side note ....

As many know I was banned from the MS boards.  **2** months after I stopped posting there.  FOR: Posting THEIR comments on men's sites.

Why do I mention this?  Because I would be glad to have made this project my "swan song" to GET banned.

But, it does give me ideas ....

First I will DO .... wait for the reaction ... THEN post.

Steven
'Watch our backs at home, we'll guard the wall over here. You can sleep safe tonight, we'll guard the door."

Isaiah 6:8
"Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

nasterator-1

This adds to the billions of excuses to murder and execute men, by women reinforced by the power of the vagina (as always cloaked by their wrongly self perpetuated propoganda) in every aspect of media.
romoting mens rights(or rather complete lack of them)in a world where hatred of men infests every corner of media,where depictions of hate and violence by women is called girl power, and where many ads use violence by women on men to sell products.These messages of this acceptable behaviour goes a long way to explain womens domestic violence and murder of men and children (predominantly male children).

Go Up