Thread by @EllieCumbo, Lots of people tweeting about this awful case, and it's one where [...]

Lots of people tweeting about this awful case, and it's one where my dual personalities as radical feminist and legal wonk come into- well, not conflict, but a failure of complete alignment.

Going to try and set out why- if this will annoy you too much, obviously do mute (1/?). https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1361301582105645061

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1361301582105645061

So the view that courts (specifically juries) bend over backwards to be lenient to "nice", normal-seeming men who kill their partners, is one I share. Why wouldn't the sexist biases & assumptions that excuse day-to-day domestic abuse also play out when the women are killed? (2/?)

The next qu from here is what controls the law & process should have place to mitigate this. I'm not going to confront the "let's bin juries" argument here*, because there's no political will to do that anyway.

*(I reserve the right to change my mind on this as I go on). (3/?)

And this is where you do have to go beyond the high-level narrative to look at the specific circumstances of these cases. Which always sounds like denying that the former is valid- I hope my followers would know from my other tweers on that subject that I'm not. (4/?)

So:

Anthony Williams was found not guilty of murdering Ruth Williams.

He was found guilty of manslaughter (by reason of diminished responsibility).

You wouldn't know that from the
headline, or until halfway through the story. This is a misleading way to report on these cases. (5/?)

I'm also seeing people tweet about the case in a way that makes it clear they've missed the fact he's been convicted of a serious crime.

This is, again, misleading, & not excused by the validity of the concern about male violence being systemically excused & trivialised (6/?).

On to the defence: many will know there used to be a defence of "provocation", which saw men get murder charges reduced to manslaughter by trading on misogynist stereotypes. It was called the "nagging & shagging" defence, & you need a strong stomach to read about the cases. (7/?)

That defence was axed in 2009, replaced by "loss of control". You can read more about that, & in what ways it was intended to be different- I'll dig out some links at the end. I'm not an expert on whether, in practical terms, it is thought to have avoided the same pitfalls. (8/?)

However: it is important to note that in this case, Anthony Williams' defence was not "loss of control", but "diminished responsibility".

Here's what you have to prove for that defence to succeed:

Can sexist biases/assumptions make their way into these four elements? Yes, many of the critiques of "provocation" have noted as much. But there are important differences. Unlike either "provocation" or "loss of control", here a "recognised medical condition" must feature. (9/?).

(Thanks for bearing with me while I'm going v slowly- v keen to avoid typos that obscure my meaning; have had to delete whole threads for that reason before).

I can find nothing in reports on what the "recognised medical condition" was in this case- a detail that seems important to a clear understanding of how the jury were persuaded to accept the defence. It must come either from a set list, or be attested to by a specialist (9/?)

More details on that will surely emerge- at which point it'll be easier to form a view on whether the jury has made a surprising decision here. We may see a fairly minor or commonplace condition, or an unconvincing account of how it was affecting Williams at the time, etc. (10/?)

I am, like many others, very prepared to see a thoroughly unsatisfying verdict in which it seems that sexism has played a big part. There is ample precedent- and again, why wouldn't there be in a society where those attitudes still exist?

But today, we don't know that. (11/?).

So, what am I actually arguing?

Not that sexism (misogyny my preferred term but: character limit) doesn't exist in these case outcomes.

But that:

1) Premature decisions about whether a specific case is part of the pattern are unhelpful.

2) Bad, incomplete reports are..
(12/?)

..REALLY unhelpful and should be subject to far more scrutiny & criticism.

3) Anyone tweeting about a case like this, however strongly they feel, should check they aren't mis-stating the known facts. The truth counts even more when the issue is this serious, doesn't it?

(13/13)

(First) add-on tweet: some reports mention anxiety & depressive illness as the recognised conditions.

There is also mention of differing views from psychiatrists.

That's normal in a diminished responsibility case- what we don't know is why the jury believed one over the other.

To be clear, I'm not seeking to dictate when critiques of this verdict become valid. I've been clear that I can forsee being persuaded by them- so "NOW do you see?" tweets miss the point.

My concern was- & is- about the initial reports and tweets on this case & others like it.

There is, IMO, a serious need for better reporting of criminal cases, especially before key facts are known.

& I'll NEVER be reconciled to reports that scream "GOT OFF MURDER" & tuck away "guilty of a serious crime & going to prison for years" as an easily-missed afterthought.

Latest Threads Unrolled: