Needless to say, the argument is now being put forward that the dead husband
was a wife-beater of some sort. And, twenty years ago, I would have swallowed this argument whole, simply on
the basis of a few 'facts'; e.g. some evidence that the husband had hit her
often in the past, or something like that.
Now, however, I doubt very much that the husband was the main cause of
their relationship problems.
Maybe he did hit her. Maybe he could cope with her no longer. Who knows?
But the fact that she seems to have had him killed tells us a great
deal about HER!.
As Erin Pizzey said, "Most of the women arriving at the refuge centres were MORE violent, even toward their children, than were the men they were supposedly escaping from."
where there is mutual violence in the home, the women
themselves are often the main culprits.
In other words, where there is mutual violence in the home, the women
themselves are often the main culprits. And the evidence that I have seen over the past 20 years or so suggests very
strongly indeed that women who kill their partners are not, in general,
the weeping wallflowers that the feminists like to portray them to be.
Far from it.
They are often very violent, very manipulative, and impossible to deal with.
And they really know how to provoke and to hurt people.
Just one example of how this is covered up by the feminist media was when
the BBC interviewed Emma Humphreys soon after she was released early from
Emma Humphreys (a cause celebre for the feminists in the UK) had served some time in prison for killing her boyfriend. But,
following vociferous claims from various wimmin's groups that she had acted in
self-defence against his violence, she was released.
When she was interviewed by the BBC on Radio 4 she had been out of prison
only for ten days. And yet she admitted that she was already in another abusive relationship with a man who
'slapped her about' frequently.
Further, she stated that love and abuse were part and parcel of each other, and that you couldn't have one without the
"If he doesn't hit you then he doesn't love you."
The interview was cut short at this point with a very embarrassed female interviewer having to cover for the missing time. The feminist-indoctrinated BBC did not want listeners to hear that Emma Humphreys might not, in fact, have been the innocent victim that
they had continually claimed her to be.
the BBC decided that to deceive its audience
As is typical, the BBC decided that to deceive its audience - in order to support
the feminist view that all women are victims - was far more important than
letting the people hear the truth.
And this 'cover-up' about the true nature of most women who kill their
partners has been going on for a very long time.
Fundamentally, and in general, women who kill their partners are not usually
the 'weak and defenceless' type - though the public is being trained to see them
in this way. Some of them are, for sure, but the evidence seems to show that it is very rare for 'weak and defenceless'
women to kill anybody.
Finally, the feminist-dominated media, such as the BBC, will always try to stir up
male hatred whatever the situation and whatever the figures show. It is male
hatred that underpins everything that they say and do. And in the case of intimate-partner homicides, the men who kill their
partners are demonised, and so are the men who are killed by their partners.
Whatever men do - even if they are killed - the feminists will stir up hatred
Mrs Keningale moved towards her husband, the court was told, intending to
slap him to stop him shouting, but her husband laughed. That was when she picked up the knife
She was going to slap him, eh? This somewhat proves that she
did not fear him - which suggests that he could not have been as 'abusive'
throughout their relationship as she claimed.
Indeed, she was going to slap him because he was shouting.
Can anyone really believe that a woman who slaps a man because he is
shouting actually lives in fear of him?
The whole notion is unbelievable.
Furthermore, not only did this woman feel able to slap this man while he was
shouting at her, she also picks up a knife.
And yet the court decides that he - the dead man - was the abusive one
in the relationship.
Indeed, she might even be given an award for bravery by Cherie Blair - as was
given to Kiranjit Ahluwalia
Can you imagine how women would feel if they lived in a world wherein
groups of men cheered and applauded those men who had killed their wives? - e.g.
see the short piece entitled Loose Women.
Well. This is exactly the kind of psychological sh#thole that western men have
had to endure for so long.
Sara Thornton was jailed for life in 1990 for the murder of her alcoholic husband. The judge said she could have walked out of her 10-month abusive marriage at any time
But she was released after a few
years following a well-orchestrated hoohah by feminists in the media and in
academia. They alleged that Sara Thornton was the real victim because she was
suffering from battered-wife syndrome.
Here is what I wrote on the
matter - about ten years ago.
Sara Thornton, 38, from
Warwickshire, was freed from prison last week pending an appeal against the
conviction of murder that she received in June 1989 for the killing of her 44
year old husband Malcolm to whom she had been married for only 10 months. She
had plunged a carving knife into him while he lay asleep on the sofa.
A previous appeal in 1991
against the conviction on the grounds that she had suffered continued domestic
violence from Malcolm was turned down by the judges because there had been ’no
sudden and temporary loss of control’ when she committed the act of murder.
Indeed, at the original trial, her actions had been described as ‘cold and
Malcolm Thornton, an
ex-policeman, had been married on two previous occasions.
His first wife, Moyra Friend,
who was married to him for 14 years, admitted that Malcolm used to drink a lot
but also stated that ‘there was never
the slightest violence. People don’t change that much, and don’t forget
that I knew him much longer than she did’.
Malcolm’s second wife Anne,
41, said, ’I spent seven years with Malcolm, and he
was not a violent man. I firmly believe that if there was any provocation it
came from Sara.’
never saw him violent.’
Malcolm’s older sister who
had known him for all of his 44 years of life said, ‘I
never saw him violent.’
According to Alex Kirsta (a
feminist writer who has conducted a great deal of research into female violence)
other evidence which is of great relevance tothis case include the facts that ...
1.Sara Thornton was judged to have had a
personality disorder in her teens.
2.She was sufficiently disruptive that she was
asked to leave her school at age 16.
3.As a younger woman she had often attempted to
4.She had once been a patient in a hospital under
the Mental Health Act.
5.Four days before the murder, Sara Thornton had
told a colleague that she was going to kill Malcolm.
6.The following day she had fed Malcolm pieces of
chicken into which she had implanted ground-up tranquilisers.
7.Just prior to his murder, Malcolm had told Sara
that he wanted a divorce.
8.Malcolm’s son Martin testified how obsessed
Sara had become with the thought that she might lose the house and some money if
Malcolm divorced her.
9.Some hours before the murder, Sara had
scrawled, ‘Bastard Thornton, I hate you,’
in lipstick on the bedroom mirror.
10.Sara had actually gone into the kitchen to
sharpen the carving knife she was about to plunge into him.
11.When Martin, Malcolm’s son, came down to the
living room when he had heard his father’s screams, Sara, without any emotion,
simply stated that she had killed him.
12.When the police and the ambulance arrived she
was reported to have told the team, ’I
don’t know why you are bothering. Let him die.’
Sara Thornton was no battered wife. She was an aggressive, vindictive
psychopath who destroyed Malcolm's life within a year of meeting him - in my