^^^ I agree- if she was just some psycho bitch she would have just stabbed him with a fork for not getting her favourite flavour of chips. Drugging someone and then cutting off their cock...that sends a message. No one accidently has their cock chopped off- there's always some karma in there somewhere.
Rape is typically fairly hard to prove unless it is reported promptly enough for a rape-kit to be taken. The prosecution couldn't accuse him of rape without prosecuting him for rape, so they said it in a way that conveyed the 'sort' of sex it was without using 'prejudicial' language- so he's 'hypersexual' and made use of erectile dysfunction medication to engage in prolonged 'painful' sex acts rather than simply calling him a sexually violent rapist.
Interestingly if she had murdered him she would have had a better defence in the form of 'battered woman's syndrome' based provocation defence. Until recently provocation was a 'mitigating factor' which you could argue in order to have a murder charge reduced to a charge of manslaughter- the law was introduced in the '80s after a woman was acquitted after stabbing her unconscious (drunk, passed out) husband to death. Her lawyer successfully argued that years of systematic domestic and sexual abuse resulted in a situation where she genuinely believed that if she didn't kill him before he came to that he'd murder her. The law was introduced to provide a mechanism to take into account such circumstances, but to ensure that 'justice is done' in the sense that a murder conviction can be reduced to manslaughter but it's not grounds for acquittal.
Ironically this law was revoked after a public outcry at this deranged little narcissist (clinical narcissist) who attempted to claim that his much younger, waif-like ex-girlfriend had 'provoked' him into stabbing her to death. He was defended (legal aide) by the same lawyer who got the law introduced (much to her chagrin) to compound the irony.
I'll admit that I felt those pangs of horror, my cock retreating a little, as I read about it (particularly her being paranoid enough to set up tape recorders, not find anything & still decide to do this)...but this is probably a whole lot less black and white than it seems. In a lot of other countries the case could have gone down very differently- she never would get life (even with parole eligibility in only 7 years) in most of Europe or New Zealand/Australia/Canada. It's often hard to know the exact nature of peoples relationships and the extent of any alleged abuse when the trial is about something else- this trial was about her guilt over cutting off the guys penis, he wasn't on trial for physical/sexual abuse. Her lawyer can allude to this behaviour and the prosecution will seek to gloss over it.
