Sugar daddy turned murderer.

Frank the tank

So, this multi-millionaire property developer sets up his escort in a property and pays her circa £120k a year. This greedy trollop then decides to blackmail him by telling all to his wife/family. Talk about greed. He decides to bump her off and gets 25years.

The whole sorry story is pathetic, but even though it was a calculated murder does anyone on here think the threat of blackmail should have lead to some mitigation of the sentence?

Whist not condoning his actions I can understand how he became so desperate and feel 25years min is a bit excessive in this particular case.

smoggysteve

Did you fall asleep in front of the TV and wake up when Hollyoaks was on and think it was the news?

Pross

All within a few miles of my house!

Garry H

Even her mum thought she was a bit of a tw@t.

Frank the tank

SmoggySteve wrote:

Did you fall asleep in front of the TV and wake up when Hollyoaks was on and think it was the news?

Alas it is true.

tangled_metal

So your infidelity comes out through blackmail but by reporting it to police she gets jailed. Or you kill her, get jailed and it all comes out anyway. So the first option you might lose your family. Second option you lose your family, business/career and family. Hardly made a good choice there!

No he got what be deserved for the murder. His wife might have stayed with him if he owned up to his wife and reported the blackmail to the police. Do you think any wife or partner will want anything to do with a murderer? Blackmail is no mitigation IMO.

DeVlaeminck

Seems about right to me - premeditated murder - the only real mitigation was that he didn't want to be embarrassed.

mamba80

Garry H wrote:

Even her mum thought she was a bit of a tw@t.

oh dear this forum will be cut short if being a tw@t meant death by strangulation :shock:

the real shame is more murderers dont get 25years, bare in mind this guy will be out before he has reached retirement age, she on the other hand is dead and her daughter wont know her mother, any chance of this woman turning her life around is gone.

veronese68

mamba80 wrote:

oh dear this forum will be cut short if being a tw@t meant death by strangulation :shock:

Would there be anyone left?
Have to agree with others. He was deceitful in setting her up, when the situation got out of his control he killed her. No consideration for others at any point, all about him. He deserves everything he got.

Frank the tank

Tangled Metal wrote:

So your infidelity comes out through blackmail but by reporting it to police she gets jailed. Or you kill her, get jailed and it all comes out anyway. So the first option you might lose your family. Second option you lose your family, business/career and family. Hardly made a good choice there!

No he got what be deserved for the murder. His wife might have stayed with him if he owned up to his wife and reported the blackmail to the police. Do you think any wife or partner will want anything to do with a murderer? Blackmail is no mitigation IMO.

I totally agree with your first paragraph that would be how someone thinking logically would think. Thing is he chose to murder her which even though he planned the killing he obviously wasn't thinking straight. The blackmail threat is provocative/threatening and indeed it is that, that lead to the murder.

I will reiterate I don't condone his actions, no more than hers.

veronese68

Frank the tank wrote:

I will reiterate I don't condone his actions, no more than hers.

She got greedy and tried to blackmail him. He killed her, to death, for ever. One is significantly worse than the other. The former in no way offers any mitigation for the latter. He thought he could get away with keeping the mistress, that is wrong and ultimately got him into the situation.

tangled_metal

I guess we'll disagree on this. Premeditated taking of his lover's life or murder was what he was found guilty of by a jury, beyond reasonable doubt. IIRC there's guidance in sentencing regulations that judges work to for the crime the defendant has been found guilty of. Those sentencing guidelines define what is acceptable mitigation. This obviously hasn't met tree criteria so the judge disregarded it.

If I'm right about this then the judge had very little leeway. The guy planned the murder. If he was under a degree of pressure that's his making. Besides that if it was such great pressure that he was unable to think straight, not in his right mind, then wouldn't the defence barrister argue this?

The guy is a property developer, not exactly a stress free occupation. Would such a successful businessman and property developer succumb to pressure of a mistress dropping him in it with his wife cause him to be unable to make rational decisions or to be culpable for his crime?

If you want to go down the route of time off for being in an uncomfortable situation then I wonder who else should have lesser sentences. I'm sure the infamous murderers would have reasons to reduce their time under this special pleading.

Guilty of a crime, sentence for the crime. Personally the only mitigation I reckon is valid is that which turns the murder charge into manslaughter.

kingstongraham

It's interesting how the cheating murderer gets described in the OP only as "multi-millionaire property developer" and the victim as "greedy trollop".

redvee

KingstonGraham wrote:

It's interesting how the cheating murderer gets described in the OP only as "multi-millionaire property developer" and the victim as "greedy trollop".

He wasn't the first one she blackmailed, there were three others before him.

BBC News wrote:

Morgan, who had been seeing Miss Symonds for three years, knew she had sexually explicit photos and films of them having sex in his wife's home and the marital bed, and that she had previously successfully blackmailed at least three former clients.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-38314421

seanoconn

Blackmail can go one of 3 ways..

1.) They cough up.
2.) They inform the police.
3.) They bump you off.

Dangerous game.

kingstongraham

redvee wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

It's interesting how the cheating murderer gets described in the OP only as "multi-millionaire property developer" and the victim as "greedy trollop".

He wasn't the first one she blackmailed, there were three others before him.

BBC News wrote:

Morgan, who had been seeing Miss Symonds for three years, knew she had sexually explicit photos and films of them having sex in his wife's home and the marital bed, and that she had previously successfully blackmailed at least three former clients.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-38314421

Who could have foreseen that someone who sleeps with you for money might not be entirely trustworthy. I don't think anyone would dispute the accuracy of the description of her.

Frank the tank

KingstonGraham wrote:

It's interesting how the cheating murderer gets described in the OP only as "multi-millionaire property developer" and the victim as "greedy trollop".

I did say the whole sorry story is pathetic.

I've never cheated on my wife, and I've never blackmailed anyone either. I was garnering opinion on here as to his sentence and whether anyone thought the blackmail threat constituted a mitigating circumstance.

To be honest perhaps the world is better off without the pair of them, as they both seem to have a pretty low moral compass.

rolf_f

I guess nasty people are more likely to have nasty stuff happen to them. It's all a bit Darwin awards in action.

Frank the tank

Rolf F wrote:

I guess nasty people are more likely to have nasty stuff happen to them. It's all a bit Darwin awards in action.

True.

mamba80

Frank the tank wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

It's interesting how the cheating murderer gets described in the OP only as "multi-millionaire property developer" and the victim as "greedy trollop".

I did say the whole sorry story is pathetic.

I've never cheated on my wife, and I've never blackmailed anyone either. I was garnering opinion on here as to his sentence and whether anyone thought the blackmail threat constituted a mitigating circumstance.

To be honest perhaps the world is better off without the pair of them, as they both seem to have a pretty low moral compass.

jeez you cant compare the 2 of them at all, he is a murderer, there is no worse crime, he has ended a life and robbed her daughter of a mother, you d not tell a 5 yo your better off without her would you? i dont know if you ve children but i doubt very much if you d the same opinion of her if it were your daughter?

these people she apparently did black mail, were perfectly happy xxxxing her, they knew full well it wasnt love but that didnt stop them cheating on their partners -
to me the women walking the street (or did Peter Sutcliff do Leeds a favour too?) or working as "escorts" are victims, they often have messed up minds and have made some very poor life choices, the men on the other hand are just thinking with their dciks.

Frank the tank

mamba80 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

It's interesting how the cheating murderer gets described in the OP only as "multi-millionaire property developer" and the victim as "greedy trollop".

I did say the whole sorry story is pathetic.

I've never cheated on my wife, and I've never blackmailed anyone either. I was garnering opinion on here as to his sentence and whether anyone thought the blackmail threat constituted a mitigating circumstance.

To be honest perhaps the world is better off without the pair of them, as they both seem to have a pretty low moral compass.

jeez you cant compare the 2 of them at all, he is a murderer, there is no worse crime, he has ended a life and robbed her daughter of a mother, you d not tell a 5 yo your better off without her would you? i dont know if you ve children but i doubt very much if you d the same opinion of her if it were your daughter?

these people she apparently did black mail, were perfectly happy xxxxing her, they knew full well it wasnt love but that didnt stop them cheating on their partners -
to me the women walking the street (or did Peter Sutcliff do Leeds a favour too?) or working as "escorts" are victims, they often have messed up minds and have made some very poor life choices, the men on the other hand are just thinking with their dciks.

Yes I have two children both adults and they both have plenty of moral fibre.

I never compared the two crimes.

haydenm

mamba80 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

It's interesting how the cheating murderer gets described in the OP only as "multi-millionaire property developer" and the victim as "greedy trollop".

I did say the whole sorry story is pathetic.

I've never cheated on my wife, and I've never blackmailed anyone either. I was garnering opinion on here as to his sentence and whether anyone thought the blackmail threat constituted a mitigating circumstance.

To be honest perhaps the world is better off without the pair of them, as they both seem to have a pretty low moral compass.

jeez you cant compare the 2 of them at all, he is a murderer, there is no worse crime, he has ended a life and robbed her daughter of a mother, you d not tell a 5 yo your better off without her would you? i dont know if you ve children but i doubt very much if you d the same opinion of her if it were your daughter?

these people she apparently did black mail, were perfectly happy xxxxing her, they knew full well it wasnt love but that didnt stop them cheating on their partners -
to me the women walking the street (or did Peter Sutcliff do Leeds a favour too?) or working as "escorts" are victims, they often have messed up minds and have made some very poor life choices, the men on the other hand are just thinking with their dciks.

Cheating on your partner is not illegal, blackmail is. Are you suggesting the men who were blackmailed deserved to become victims of crime just because you don't agree with their choices? Terrible...

smoggysteve

HaydenM wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

It's interesting how the cheating murderer gets described in the OP only as "multi-millionaire property developer" and the victim as "greedy trollop".

I did say the whole sorry story is pathetic.

I've never cheated on my wife, and I've never blackmailed anyone either. I was garnering opinion on here as to his sentence and whether anyone thought the blackmail threat constituted a mitigating circumstance.

To be honest perhaps the world is better off without the pair of them, as they both seem to have a pretty low moral compass.

jeez you cant compare the 2 of them at all, he is a murderer, there is no worse crime, he has ended a life and robbed her daughter of a mother, you d not tell a 5 yo your better off without her would you? i dont know if you ve children but i doubt very much if you d the same opinion of her if it were your daughter?

these people she apparently did black mail, were perfectly happy xxxxing her, they knew full well it wasnt love but that didnt stop them cheating on their partners -
to me the women walking the street (or did Peter Sutcliff do Leeds a favour too?) or working as "escorts" are victims, they often have messed up minds and have made some very poor life choices, the men on the other hand are just thinking with their dciks.

Cheating on your partner is not illegal, blackmail is. Are you suggesting the men who were blackmailed deserved to become victims of crime just because you don't agree with their choices? Terrible...

Thou shall not commit adultery.

Maybe so in our laws but God gets a bit P1ssed about the whole thing

bianchimoon

mamba80 wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Even her mum thought she was a bit of a tw@t.

oh dear this forum will be cut short if being a tw@t meant death by strangulation :shock:

the real shame is more murderers dont get 25years, bare in mind this guy will be out before he has reached retirement age, she on the other hand is dead and her daughter wont know her mother, any chance of this woman turning her life around is gone.

This^

rjsterry

SmoggySteve wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

It's interesting how the cheating murderer gets described in the OP only as "multi-millionaire property developer" and the victim as "greedy trollop".

I did say the whole sorry story is pathetic.

I've never cheated on my wife, and I've never blackmailed anyone either. I was garnering opinion on here as to his sentence and whether anyone thought the blackmail threat constituted a mitigating circumstance.

To be honest perhaps the world is better off without the pair of them, as they both seem to have a pretty low moral compass.

jeez you cant compare the 2 of them at all, he is a murderer, there is no worse crime, he has ended a life and robbed her daughter of a mother, you d not tell a 5 yo your better off without her would you? i dont know if you ve children but i doubt very much if you d the same opinion of her if it were your daughter?

these people she apparently did black mail, were perfectly happy xxxxing her, they knew full well it wasnt love but that didnt stop them cheating on their partners -
to me the women walking the street (or did Peter Sutcliff do Leeds a favour too?) or working as "escorts" are victims, they often have messed up minds and have made some very poor life choices, the men on the other hand are just thinking with their dciks.

Cheating on your partner is not illegal, blackmail is. Are you suggesting the men who were blackmailed deserved to become victims of crime just because you don't agree with their choices? Terrible...

Thou shall not commit adultery.

Maybe so in our laws but God gets a bit P1ssed about the whole thing

And I'm sure He is more than capable of sorting that out without our interference.

orraloon

Frank the tank wrote:

I was garnering opinion on here as to his sentence and whether anyone thought the blackmail threat constituted a mitigating circumstance.

Nah. The blackmail could be considered as a causation, but cannot be thought of as a mitigation.

bianchimoon

rjsterry wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

It's interesting how the cheating murderer gets described in the OP only as "multi-millionaire property developer" and the victim as "greedy trollop".

I did say the whole sorry story is pathetic.

I've never cheated on my wife, and I've never blackmailed anyone either. I was garnering opinion on here as to his sentence and whether anyone thought the blackmail threat constituted a mitigating circumstance.

To be honest perhaps the world is better off without the pair of them, as they both seem to have a pretty low moral compass.

jeez you cant compare the 2 of them at all, he is a murderer, there is no worse crime, he has ended a life and robbed her daughter of a mother, you d not tell a 5 yo your better off without her would you? i dont know if you ve children but i doubt very much if you d the same opinion of her if it were your daughter?

these people she apparently did black mail, were perfectly happy xxxxing her, they knew full well it wasnt love but that didnt stop them cheating on their partners -
to me the women walking the street (or did Peter Sutcliff do Leeds a favour too?) or working as "escorts" are victims, they often have messed up minds and have made some very poor life choices, the men on the other hand are just thinking with their dciks.

Cheating on your partner is not illegal, blackmail is. Are you suggesting the men who were blackmailed deserved to become victims of crime just because you don't agree with their choices? Terrible...

Thou shall not commit adultery.

Maybe so in our laws but God gets a bit P1ssed about the whole thing

And I'm sure He is more than capable of sorting that out without our interference.

Is this the same imaginary being can't even put his own house in order?

rjsterry

bianchimoon wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

It's interesting how the cheating murderer gets described in the OP only as "multi-millionaire property developer" and the victim as "greedy trollop".

I did say the whole sorry story is pathetic.

I've never cheated on my wife, and I've never blackmailed anyone either. I was garnering opinion on here as to his sentence and whether anyone thought the blackmail threat constituted a mitigating circumstance.

To be honest perhaps the world is better off without the pair of them, as they both seem to have a pretty low moral compass.

jeez you cant compare the 2 of them at all, he is a murderer, there is no worse crime, he has ended a life and robbed her daughter of a mother, you d not tell a 5 yo your better off without her would you? i dont know if you ve children but i doubt very much if you d the same opinion of her if it were your daughter?

these people she apparently did black mail, were perfectly happy xxxxing her, they knew full well it wasnt love but that didnt stop them cheating on their partners -
to me the women walking the street (or did Peter Sutcliff do Leeds a favour too?) or working as "escorts" are victims, they often have messed up minds and have made some very poor life choices, the men on the other hand are just thinking with their dciks.

Cheating on your partner is not illegal, blackmail is. Are you suggesting the men who were blackmailed deserved to become victims of crime just because you don't agree with their choices? Terrible...

Thou shall not commit adultery.

Maybe so in our laws but God gets a bit P1ssed about the whole thing

And I'm sure He is more than capable of sorting that out without our interference.

Is this the same imaginary being can't even put his own house in order?

I think you’ve completely misunderstood my post. My point was that if you believe that there is no escaping a final divine judgement, then there's not really a need to also go around imposing your moral viewpoint on others. I think people who profess a belief in (a) God should spend more time thinking about their own actions and less time worrying about what everyone else is doing wrong.

bianchimoon

rjsterry wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

It's interesting how the cheating murderer gets described in the OP only as "multi-millionaire property developer" and the victim as "greedy trollop".

I did say the whole sorry story is pathetic.

I've never cheated on my wife, and I've never blackmailed anyone either. I was garnering opinion on here as to his sentence and whether anyone thought the blackmail threat constituted a mitigating circumstance.

To be honest perhaps the world is better off without the pair of them, as they both seem to have a pretty low moral compass.

jeez you cant compare the 2 of them at all, he is a murderer, there is no worse crime, he has ended a life and robbed her daughter of a mother, you d not tell a 5 yo your better off without her would you? i dont know if you ve children but i doubt very much if you d the same opinion of her if it were your daughter?

these people she apparently did black mail, were perfectly happy xxxxing her, they knew full well it wasnt love but that didnt stop them cheating on their partners -
to me the women walking the street (or did Peter Sutcliff do Leeds a favour too?) or working as "escorts" are victims, they often have messed up minds and have made some very poor life choices, the men on the other hand are just thinking with their dciks.

Cheating on your partner is not illegal, blackmail is. Are you suggesting the men who were blackmailed deserved to become victims of crime just because you don't agree with their choices? Terrible...

Thou shall not commit adultery.

Maybe so in our laws but God gets a bit P1ssed about the whole thing

And I'm sure He is more than capable of sorting that out without our interference.

Is this the same imaginary being can't even put his own house in order?

I think you’ve completely misunderstood my post. My point was that if you believe that there is no escaping a final divine judgement, then there's not really a need to also go around imposing your moral viewpoint on others. I think people who profess a belief in (a) God should spend more time thinking about their own actions and less time worrying about what everyone else is doing wrong.

ahh apologies, have a great holiday break

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

I think people who profess a belief in (a) God should spend more time thinking about their own actions and less time worrying about what everyone else is doing wrong.

I think the same about the drivers who keep complaining when I don't use bits of the crappy Leeds superhighway. What business is it of theirs where I ride my bike? Sort your own driving out please....