A loving father who strangled his autistic daughter because no one else would look after her walked free from court yesterday.
Devoted Mark Freaney, 50, admitted he killed his daughter Glenda, 11, with a coat belt in an airport hotel room.
Freaney told police he killed Glenda so ‘no one could point fingers at her’ when she was in heaven.
1) This is how a reporter justifies a judge who let a murderer walk free?
Mrs Justice Wynona Williams told him: ‘You have already been punished enough.
‘The only sensible and credible explanation is that your state of mind was truely abnormal.
‘At the end you genuinely but irrationally believed that no-one but you could care for Glenda and, since you were intent on killing yourself, you had to kill her first.
‘Not withstanding the fact that your crime was to kill a child, your culpability was very low.
‘There could be no doubts you were completely devoted to Glenda throughout her short life and showered her with love and affection.
‘You cared for her with the best of your ability, day in and day out. She was very demanding but you never let that deflect from putting her best interests above those of your own.’
2) This is how a judge justifies himself for compliance with a murderer?
John Charles Rees, defending, said: ‘He was undoubtably a loving father to all his children and killed Glenda out of love not malice.
‘There was never any dispute as to the facts of this case. The issue was a medical one. He was suffering from a personality disorder.’This is a wholly exceptional case we’ve heard, for reasons quite a distressing and haunting.
‘He went through experiences that no one should ever have to go through.
3) This is how an attorney of defense corrupts the court to comply with a murderer?
‘He needs to be reintroduced into the community and back into his family, that can’t happen over night but can happen in a supervised and controlled way.’
4) This is what the consequence of murder should be for the murderer?
Freaney was discovered in the Sky Plaza hotel room near Cardiff Airport with multiple knife wounds after a botched suicide attempt.
As he was being arrested, Freaney said: ‘She was laughing when I was strangling her. That is when I knew she was happy.
‘I had to do it because now no-one can point fingers at her. She is in heaven now.
‘I killed her. I was frightened about who would look after her.’
5) This is how a murderer corrupts the justice system to let him walk free?
The court heard “loving and devoted” Freaney was facing a lifetime of one-to-one caring for Glenda after the breakdown of his abusive marriage.
The jury heard how Glenda could walk, run and ride a bike and communicated through a computer by tapping on symbols on the screen. But she was not toilet trained and still wore nappies.
Prosecutor Greg Taylor QC said: ‘Glenda was a young girl who suffered from severe autism – she was diagnosed when she was aged four.
‘She was generally fit and well and had a normal life expectancy but she was totally dependent on adult care.
‘She needed help, dressing, washing, brushing her teeth and feeding.’
6) This is acceptable victim blaming in order to justify a murderer?
Mr Taylor told the court Freaney and his wife Yvonne had a marriage “filled with problems” and he moved out of the family home about a month before Glenda’s death.
The jury was told how athletic former RAF servicewoman Yvonne attacked her husband on numerous occasions at their home in Barry, South Wales.
Police were called several times to the family home after alleged domestic violence. Freaney was examined by doctors for injuries but never pressed charges against his wife.
The court heard Mrs Freaney had told social services: ‘I’m a husband beater and proud of it. He deserves it.’
7) This is how a reporter pictures the mother as scapegoat for the murderous act of the father?
His son Carl said: ‘I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has helped and supported us through this very hard time.
‘The conclusion of the trial will help give closure for us all and allow us to move on. I love my father and will remain supportive of him.’
8) This is how the son of the murderer denies the fact of his father’s crime against his little sister?
Detective Chief Inspector Brigitta Jones said: ‘Any investigation into the death of a child is distressing for everyone involved.
‘This was a very difficult case but it was only correct that the facts were presented at court. We note the decision of the court today and extend our sympathies to the family.’
9) This is how the police deny the fact that the case is one of child-murder?
The answers to the 9 questions:
Question 9): Yes.
Questions 1) to 8): No. Of course not. Unimaginable. In a really tasteless parody on the culture of male violence patriarchy is said to foster, perhaps. Sure not in reality. And even as satire, no author would get such a script produced.
On the other hand, the answer to questions 1) to 8) is actually a straight Yes. On the other hand, that is. The hand one can establish by exchanging the sexes of all the protagonists of the drama.
Does that clarification bring relief? Is the outrage of the reader now pacified? Can we relax with the waning of the shock about the screaming perversion of justice, jumping in our face? The familarity of jurisdictional reality is regained, no more need to raise serious doubts about the justice of criminal courts in the UK.
No mother needs to be anxious her child could be murdered by her husband, without him even get so much punishment as a slap on the wrist. Families can feel reasonably safe and secure, because no judge has signaled to the fathers in the country they can act their anger against the wife out on their child and blame it on aggressive personality disorder, not to speak of producing the mother as scapegoat.
They will think twice and thrice, as it always was, before they take to the very meanest possible weapon to gain victory, once and for all, in the marital war. To rot away in prison for decades, is a high price for such a diabolic triumph. And death is the only alternative, as no one is so sick to believe a man might be too stupid to kill himself successfully.
A toast on the rule of justice!
Yet, for the sake of impartiality, I have to admit I hear a voice in my head insisting on being heard, and it goes like:
It’s his own fault. There is no way you can hit back against a borderline wife. She will always escalate the fight, and assure she gets the last word, how monstrous and horrible that might sound – as long as she sees a chance to get away with it. She’s a woman, hear her roar!
And in a society that teaches women they are entitled to rule it over men and children as chattel, moreover in a political climate where the government advises the judges to give out lighter sentences to women than to men for the same crime, and this to judges who admit they have done exactly that on their own, anyway, because they believe women have it harder in life and suffer more in prison than men – well, there is no limit for what she can get away with.
She may kill one child, two, three or four. After birth, as little children, as teenagers. Drown them, choke them, cut them, slaughter them with an axe. It does not matter, and it is all the same. It was not her fault. It was her emotions. It was not her responsibility. Voices told her to. Her thoughts made her kill. She did not know what else to do. She did not know what she did. She believed she did the best she could do. In fact, she did it out of love, not malice.
She may kill her husband. Shoot him in his sleep, run him over with her car, stab him in the back, hire a hitman. It does not matter, and it is all the same. It was not her fault. She is not to blame. It was his own fault. She was afraid of him. She acted in selfdefense, she acted in panic, she was overwhelmed by her emotions.
His mistake was to think justice is held in higher esteem than pleasing woman. He thought if she deserves to be beaten, he is right to do so to her. As it used to be.
But these times are long past and gone. Now there is a oneway road of quid-pro-quo justice. If he is beaten by her, physically or emotionally, he deserves it, and she is cheered for her selfassertion. The other way round is called domestic violence or intimate partner violence, and he goes to prison and to re-education camp for it, he is put in the pillory, and, in case, he is being blamed as the true culprit for her murderous violent.