More on the our previous post about the woman whose rape lie caused her husband to beat an innocent man to death. Read on -- here's the crux of it: "She knew how [the husband] was likely to react. She was looking to deflect his anger from her to [the victim]." When [the husband] arrived, she could have left the property, thrown her arm round [him] and said: 'Now I'm safe'. Instead, she set [the victim] up for a beating and gave [the husband] access to the flat."
Wife ditched her husband on their wedding night... 'then called him the next morning to help beat her lover to death'
By Daily Mail ReporterLast updated at 12:08 PM on 20th May 2009
A newly-wed couple beat the wife's lover to death hours after their wedding, a court heard.
Wendy Shobrook and her husband Barry Johnson went on a drinking binge after their marriage on June 9 last year, a jury was told.
But Shobrook stormed off to lover George Auchterlonie's home after Johnson took time out from their pub crawl to pick up his giro.
The 40-year-old at first claimed the wedding had been a mistake and screwed up her marriage certificate, then had a change of heart and returned to her new husband's council flat.
The couple, from Plymouth, Devon, then had a row during which Shobrook set fire to Johnson's bed and screaming he should 'burn in hell'.
Plymouth Crown Court heard that as the blaze ravaged the property, Shobrook returned to Auchterlonie's flat and spent the night with him.
The following day Shobrook rang Johnson and claimed Mr Auchterlonie, 45, had tried to rob and rape her.
Martin Meeke QC, prosecuting, said the claims were false and she had set up Mr Auchterlonie for 'the beating which he got'.
He said: 'The night before she had set fire to the bed in which her new husband was lying.
'She had left him on their wedding night, gone to spend the night at the address of a man who he believed she was having an affair with.
'She knew how he was likely to react. She was looking to deflect his anger from her to George Auchterlonie.
"When he arrived, she could have left the property, thrown her arm round Barry Johnson and said: "Now I'm safe".
'Instead, she set George up for a beating and gave Johnson access to the flat.'
The court heard both a wooden oar and a tumbler glass were used to inflict 38 separate injuries including 14 to the head and neck.
Mr Auchterlonie was attacked at his home and is believed to have died some hours later. The body was not found for three days, until June 13.
Mr Meeke said: 'When they left George Auchterlonie he was still alive, left by these defendants to die in a pool of blood.'
He told the court Johnson later bragged to a number of friends that he had 'given George a beating' and 'taught him a lesson'.
The court was also told he boasted of having attacked Mr Auchterlonie for 15 minutes and had previously threatened to 'kill him'.
After the assault, the couple were filmed on CCTV in their bloodstained clothes buying beer at a local shop.
In a statement to police, Shobrook said she did not want Johnson to kill Mr Auchterlonie, and after hearing a glass smash and seeing Johnson hit his victim with an oar, she intervened, saying: 'No, that's enough.'
But Mr Meeke said Shobrook's account was completely inconsistent with the victim's injuries and the state of the flat, whose lounge and kitchen floors were covered in blood in an attack lasting 'tens of minutes'.
Johnson, 40, and Shobrook, of Plymouth, both deny murder.
Shobrook has pleaded guilty to arson being reckless as to whether the life of another would be endangered.
Mr Meeke said the prosecution believed that Shobrook not only created a situation for her husband to attack Mr Auchterlonie but was 'personally involved' in the murder.
The trial, at Plymouth Crown Court, continues.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184695/Wife-ditched-husband-wedding-night--called-morning-help-beat-lover-death.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Women who make up stories about being raped need to go to prison even if their stories are never reported to the police. This is that serious.
I recall GG saying.."There is never any real harm done by false rape accusations". "Never any bodily intrusions"!!
Is getting beat to death...not a bodily intrusion??
Scott - "I recall GG saying.."There is never any real harm done by false rape accusations"."Frequent Glenn Sacks "rape issue" poster Georgia Girl has, at times, paid "lip service" to the harm done by false rape accusations.
But, she only does that as an "entry point" into the discussion which she will, invariably, try to recast as "men need to do more to stop rape/false rape harm pales in comparison to real rape harm".
What truly annoys me about GG is that she constantly holds out the unreasonable standard of (to paraphrase her arguments) "Once men have done their due diligence, and male-on-female rape has been entirely eliminated, then women will be willing to address the issue of false rape reporting".
I used to think she was just a bit nuts, but, recently it has occurred to me that there might be something a bit more sinister to her suggestion.
I believe that she (like many other women) has set the bar for getting women on-board deliberately out of reach of all practical reality with the specific intent of using the fact that such a standard will never be met to forever forestall the involvement of women like herself in addressing the very real harm (and heinous crime) of false rape accusations.
As we see with false DV and false child abuse charges used by women to control marriage, divorce, and child custody, women ENJOY the ever-present, unspoken threat of the false rape charge trump card. It, like the threat of false DV and child abuse charges gives them power over men and allows avenues of manipulation ranging from revenge to extortion.
But, as holds for false DV and child abuse charges, in order to maintain the power of that unspoke threat, some women recognize that some certain number of women will have to play those trump cards. Like all "threats", these false reporting ones would lose their effectiveness if they were never used.
I realize that I probably sound at the least jaded, and perhaps even a bit nuts myself for suggesting that some women truly do not want to do anything to stop other women from making false accusation simply because it gives even women who do not make such false charges power over men. But, I've wracked my brains trying to understand why some women who are obviously well aware of the problem seem to remain entirely dismissive of the idea that it should be addressed socially and legally. All I can conclude is that they have made some sort of mental calculation that they stand to gain by having false reports continue unabated.
So, am I nuts? I'll leave it to others to decide if what I've proffered here makes sense. Or, if others have their own ideas as to why some women seem to NOT want to interfere with the false reporting epidemic.
GG is just a troll. She should have been banned months ago.
Sounds like she can be let off easy if her lawyers play the "burning bed" card, then claim she was drunk and thus 'not herself' the rest of the time.
Slwerner,
You don't sound nuts at all. Your comments have always been well thought out and comprehensive. I hadn't considered that angle to it before. You may be on to something. Funny, how in all the "rape hysteria" dialogue, things seem to be getting worse, when DOJ/FBI stats show rape, and other sexual crimes are down.
As far as GG, in the beginning, I had some sympathy for her situation. At this point, she has beat it into the ground so much, that she has made me indifferent to her. And that will likely be more of a problem for her than being yelled and screamed at.
I hope she gets 20 years at least.
As to GG, I'm with The Archivist. I'm sick to death of hearing her go on about her own case and have been tempted many times to tell her to "Get over it".
Quote: "Once men have done their due diligence, and male-on-female rape has been entirely eliminated, then women will be willing to address the issue of false rape reporting".
You're right - that's exactly what she is saying. This is a female power trip the like of which has never been seen before in history.
The deal is - men HAVE attempted to do their 'due diligence'.
Women just didn't like the way they went about it.
Forcing women to wear veils and covering themselves head to toe was done to protect them.
Requiring women to never walk anywhere alone, go anywhere unchaperoned, and beating (or beheading them) when they were careless was pretty much the best solution men could think of. In some countries women are sexually mutilated to prevent them from being promiscious.
Now this is the very thing women in this country are trying to provoke women in other countries to rebel against.
In this country, little boys pretty much dress like they always have. Jeans. T shirts. Tennis shoes.
Girls, however, dress like hookers - they wear make up, thong panties, short skirts, belly exposing shirts - in KINDERGARTEN!
Not to waft off into the victim blaming debate, but something wrong is going on here, and it's not all men's fault.
I hate to say it, but Glenn won't ban gg - one reason is he is a little bit chivalristic at times. I emailed him about jeana a while back, and he seems firmly convinced that she is there to attempt to engage in a productive dialogue.
I guess the 't' word isn't in his vocabulary.
"In some countries women are sexually mutilated to prevent them from being promiscious."
At least that is a reason. There is NO valid reason to circumscise, however, but it's considered more acceptible to mutilite babies in the U.S. than to do harm to women in foreign cultures.
I really am getting tired of feminists dredging up foreign countries and past times. We live in the HERE and NOW, where women have all the same rights as men, actually more; and besides people have a skewed view of these other scenarios. For example, at no point in all of history have women been 'oppressed' - in fact men are the disadvantaged group in all cultures, where there operates a profound natural prejudice against them, and where they must compete in the male dominance hierarchy and suffer the resultant ill effects [see Moxon].
And much of what goes on in, for example, Islamic countries has to do with female intra-sexual competition (for example wearing of the viel). In fact, a whole book could be written on that topic.
Glenn has no problem banning hardcore MRAs, however. His blog is a nest for feminist trolls.
Post a Comment