Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

by eddie Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:25 pm

Callous brute Matthew Hartley battered his wife during 12 years of hell and Catherine says that after he refused to let her eat she became so thin she wore clothes meant for seven year old.

Catherine, 32, who was a healthy size 12 when she married Hartley, has claimed Hartley restricted her food intake in a bid to realise his dream of having a size zero partner.

She says he refused to let her eat because he didn’t “want a fat wife” and her weight plummeted to just over five stone.

Now Catherine says she feels let down by the justice system after he walked free from court despite being found guilty of attacks on her.

In one attack, Hartley grabbed her by the neck and lifted her off the floor, before throwing her across the room and then sitting on her and trying to strangle her.

Catherine said: “He said I was fat so he put me on a diet. He wanted a size 0 wife.

“If I ate before I went to bed, he forced me to sleep on the sofa as he didn’t like the smell of food on me.

“I ended up so thin that when I lay down on the mattress my bones hurt.

“In the end, I was wearing a girl’s age-seven clothes.

“One day we were with my family in their living room and I asked him to take me for some food as I was hungry.

“He lost it and grabbed me by the neck so my feet were hanging in the air and then threw me across the floor.

“He jumped on top of me, strangling me and almost chocked the life out of me.”

The couple separated in August 2017 and divorced in April this year. The same month, Hartley, 42, was found guilty at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court of three counts of assault against Catherine between January 2004 and November 2016.

But in May, Hartley walked free from court after being handed a community payback order with 12 months’ supervision and added to the sex offenders’ register for 12 months.

But Catherine, from Perceton, Irvine, feels her ex should have been jailed.

“I was his prisoner for 12 years, I practically served a life sentence and all he got was a slap on the wrists. It’s like what happened to me doesn’t matter.
“There needs to be harsher punishments for people like him.”

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/abused-woman-starved-husband-who-18784733

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:20 am

She let him behave like that for 12 years?

by Syl Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:52 am

It seems farcical that he got off so lightly, he should have been jailed.

With care she can rebuild her life now she is free of him, and he is named and shamed which hopfully will be a warning for any other woman he tries to abuse.

by eddie Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:13 am

Raggamuffin wrote:She let him behave like that for 12 years?

Sometimes people in situations don’t see what’s obvious because they’re right in it...right?

by Original Quill Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:51 pm

eddie wrote:Now Catherine says she feels let down by the justice system after he walked free from court despite being found guilty of attacks on her.

What was the sentence? The clip won't open because of my ad-blocker.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:57 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:She let him behave like that for 12 years?

Sometimes people in situations don’t see what’s obvious because they’re right in it...right?

If you say so.

I'm not sure I believe some of this story, and if someone did nothing about it for 12 years, perhaps the judge thought it couldn't have been that bad.

by Syl Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:14 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:

Sometimes people in situations don’t see what’s obvious because they’re right in it...right?

If you say so.

I'm not sure I believe some of this story, and if someone did nothing about it for 12 years, perhaps the judge thought it couldn't have been that bad.

Sometimes judges have little empathy for cases like this. Didn't one recently agree the woman was badly abused throughout her marriage but decided that because she was a bright, intelligent, educated woman with good career prospects she would soon get over it....and her partner also got off with a ludicrously light sentence.

"When a violent and controlling husband who beat his wife with a cricket bat and forced her to drink bleach was allowed to walk free from court there was a huge backlash, with MPs and domestic violence charities publically criticising the judge who handed down the sentence. Mustafa Bashir, 34, also throttled his wife in public and told her to kill herself. He admitted assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was given an 18-month prison term. But the judge decided to suspend the sentence because he believed the victim was not “vulnerable”. Labour MP Jess Phillips and Conservative MP Maria Miller said they were concerned by the case and would write to the attorney general. While sassy Horley, the chief executive of Refuge, said the judge’s comments showed “shocking ignorance around the impact of domestic violence”.
The question is why did the judge think the man’s wife was not vulnerable? And how can we educate people about the frightening realities of controlling and coercive behaviour?"

http://theconversation.com/domestic-abuse-even-the-judges-are-getting-it-wrong-75481

by magica Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:36 am

Raggamuffin wrote:She let him behave like that for 12 years?

I think she put up with it because she was in that self loathing mode whereby she probably thought he was right, her wrong. Being abused, bullied, beaten, and starved is incomprehensible to many that she could stay in that situation. Maybe she was too scared to leave.

by Syl Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:53 am

magica wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:She let him behave like that for 12 years?

I think she put up with it because she was in that self loathing mode whereby she probably thought he was right, her wrong. Being abused, bullied, beaten, and starved is incomprehensible to many that she could stay in that situation. Maybe she was too scared to leave.

I agree with you, it's hard to imagine how it would feel to have someone you love treat you so badly, it probably happened little by little, till before she knew it she had no confidence left in herself. She was just a kid when they met, easy to manipulate and groom.

by magica Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:58 pm

I agree Syl. It crept up on her, then it became her life, poor lady.

by Syl Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:58 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Now Catherine says she feels let down by the justice system after he walked free from court despite being found guilty of attacks on her.

What was the sentence? The clip won't open because of my ad-blocker.

In May, Hartley walked free from court after being handed a community payback order with 12 months’ supervision and added to the sex offenders’ register for 12 months.

by Original Quill Wed Jul 31, 2019 3:32 am

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

What was the sentence? The clip won't open because of my ad-blocker.

In May, Hartley walked free from court after being handed a community payback order with 12 months’ supervision and added to the sex offenders’ register for 12 months.

Yes, but there had to be an underlying sentence, one that he walked free from. Maybe it's different in the US, but here a court will sentence you to time...and then suspend the sentence (if appropriate). That way they can pull you back (arrest you) if you break any conditions of release.

I thought this guy was walking from a suspended sentence.

by Syl Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:55 am

He walked free simply means he is a free man, imprisoning him wasn't mentioned by the judge.
He received a community payback order which is....

"A Community Payback Order (CPO) is an alternative to custody designed to ensure that offenders payback to society, and to particular communities. Often an offender will have to carry out unpaid work. In addition, the offender will often be required to address and change their offending behaviour to improve the safety of the local community and help them re-integrate to the community as law abiding citizens."

And also after 12 months he will be wiped off the sex offenders register too. Had he been jailed for 6 months or more he would have stayed on it for 10 years.

by Original Quill Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:15 pm

Syl wrote:And also after 12 months he will be wiped off the sex offenders register too.

I saw that. First, what sex act did he do to bring the sex offenders registry into play? Was he diddling the couple's children?

Second, WTF do you Brits let sex offenders off for…anytime? In the US, they are on it for life...on the premise that they don't quit being offenders just because 6 mos. go by. What? Do you send them to deviant school and they come out clean?

by Syl Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:And also after 12 months he will be wiped off the sex offenders register too.

I saw that. First, what sex act did he do to bring the sex offenders registry into play? Was he diddling the couple's children?

Second, WTF do you Brits let sex offenders off for…anytime? In the US, they are on it for life...on the premise that they don't quit being offenders just because 6 mos. go by. What? Do you send them to deviant school and they come out clean?

It's not only sexual crimes against children that warrant a person being put on the sex offenders register, but this woman was only 15 he started pursuing her, so if he had a sexual relationship with her when she was underage that could be the reason.

by Original Quill Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:15 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I saw that. First, what sex act did he do to bring the sex offenders registry into play? Was he diddling the couple's children?

Second, WTF do you Brits let sex offenders off for…anytime? In the US, they are on it for life...on the premise that they don't quit being offenders just because 6 mos. go by. What? Do you send them to deviant school and they come out clean?
It's not only sexual crimes against children that warrant a person being put on the sex offenders register, but this woman was only 15 he started pursuing her, so if he had a sexual relationship with her when she was underage that could be the reason.

If...but it does make sense. I'd still like to see the evidence.

But, who gets off a sex offender's list? How does a certified deviant get decertified merely by the passage of time?

by Syl Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:31 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:
It's not only sexual crimes against children that warrant a person being put on the sex offenders register, but this woman was only 15 he started pursuing her, so if he had a sexual relationship with her when she was underage that could be the reason.

If...but it does make sense. I'd still like to see the evidence.

But, who gets off a sex offender's list? How does a certified deviant get decertified merely by the passage of time?

The report doesn't go into detail but also says...."As well as the charges against Catherine, Hartley was convicted of sexually assaulting another woman between December 2010 and January 2011."

Who gets off the sex offenders list?
It would depend obviously on why they were placed on it in the first place.
Crimes varying from indecent exposure to child rape can get a person placed on it, if someone exposes themselves when they are young should they be classed the same on the register as someone who has raped a child?

by Original Quill Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:06 pm

Syl wrote:Who gets off the sex offenders list?
It would depend obviously on why they were placed on it in the first place.

Crimes varying from indecent exposure to child rape can get a person placed on it, if someone exposes themselves when they are young should they be classed the same on the register as someone who has raped a child?

Well, I assume the authorities are responsible when they chose who gets on the list in the first place. I trust they are not arresting 4-year old children for taking a wizz in the woods.

If the authorities are responsible for who gets on the list, the perp should never get off. That's my view.

by Syl Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:Who gets off the sex offenders list?
It would depend obviously on why they were placed on it in the first place.

Crimes varying from indecent exposure to child rape can get a person placed on it, if someone exposes themselves when they are young should they be classed the same on the register as someone who has raped a child?

Well, I assume the authorities are responsible when they chose who gets on the list in the first place. I trust they are not arresting 4-year old children for taking a wizz in the woods.

If the authorities are responsible for who gets on the list, the perp should never get off. That's my view.

As far as I know you would not be registered on the sex offenders registry for more than 12 months if you have not been served with a custodial sentence.
Not many 4 year olds are in the nick here, so...... Laughing

by Original Quill Thu Aug 01, 2019 12:16 am

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, I assume the authorities are responsible when they chose who gets on the list in the first place. I trust they are not arresting 4-year old children for taking a wizz in the woods.

If the authorities are responsible for who gets on the list, the perp should never get off. That's my view.

As far as I know you would not be registered on the sex offenders registry for more than 12 months if you have not been served with a custodial sentence.
Not many 4 year olds are in the nick here, so......

That differs from our laws. You go on the list, you get removed when you die. As a result, they are careful about who they put on the list.

Not many 4 year old's here either. But I believe our way is superior. A sexual predator is not likely to change without some sort of therapy...and then don't be surprised if it happens again. The List is just a record that says, hey s/he did it once...keep an eye out.

by Syl Thu Aug 01, 2019 12:29 am

I see your point. If the crime is serious.
On the other hand if an 18 year old exposes himself for a laugh, is caught having sex in public, or any other relatively minor offence and is put on the register, should he have to live with that stigma for the rest of his life?

by Original Quill Thu Aug 01, 2019 12:34 am

Syl wrote:I see your point. If the crime is serious.
On the other hand if an 18 year old exposes himself for a laugh, is caught having sex in public, or any other relatively minor offence and is put on the register, should he have to live with that stigma for the rest of his life?

If the crime is that frivolous, don't put him or her on the list. But if the crime is anywhere near hurting someone, and is related to sexual abuse, s/he belongs on the list...that's what it's for.

by Syl Thu Aug 01, 2019 12:48 am

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:I see your point. If the crime is serious.
On the other hand if an 18 year old exposes himself for a laugh, is caught having sex in public, or any other relatively minor offence and is put on the register, should he have to live with that stigma for the rest of his life?

If the crime is that frivolous, don't put him or her on the list. But if the crime is anywhere near hurting someone, and is related to sexual abuse, s/he belongs on the list...that's what it's for.

People can be put on the list here for the crimes i mentioned.

Not for life obviously, the length of time depends on the length of the prison sentence.
Any sex offender who is served a prison sentence for 30 months or more will stay on it indefinately..

I think our system is fairer.

by Original Quill Thu Aug 01, 2019 2:12 am

Syl wrote:Not for life obviously, the length of time depends on the length of the prison sentence.

Why? Did the bloke or blokess suddenly get well over the length of sentence? Does the length of sentence carry with it counseling and evaluation? Is there any reasonable relationship of such a plan to reality?

In fact, the offenders list is not designed to be punitive. It's designed to inform. To take someone off the list who is not cured, is a falsehood. I see no reason to falsely inform the public of something so important to protecting their children.

by Syl Thu Aug 01, 2019 12:16 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:Not for life obviously, the length of time depends on the length of the prison sentence.

Why? Did the bloke or blokess suddenly get well over the length of sentence? Does the length of sentence carry with it counseling and evaluation? Is there any reasonable relationship of such a plan to reality?

In fact, the offenders list is not designed to be punitive. It's designed to inform. To take someone off the list who is not cured, is a falsehood. I see no reason to falsely inform the public of something so important to protecting their children.

Depends (as I said) on why you were put on the register in the first place.

If you flash once and never again at someone when you are 20, serve the term allocated, should you then have the stigma of the police, local schools, local councils, etc of knowing you are on the sex offenders list for the rest of your life?

If in the states only the more serious sexual criminals are placed on the list I would agree, if less serious sexual crimes like the ones I mentioned are also placed on the list for life,,,,that seems very harsh imo.?

by JulesV Thu Aug 01, 2019 1:30 pm

I am trained in all aspects of domestic violence issues. Including how to spot it a mile off, even when the signs are subtle. Horror stories like this illustrate why abusive men are always so keen to isolate their partners from family & friends.

Isolation of their victims is a top priority. Just so they can carry out their abuse with impunity.

by Syl Thu Aug 01, 2019 4:50 pm

Jules wrote:I am trained in all aspects of domestic violence issues. Including how to spot it a mile off, even when the signs are subtle. Horror stories like this illustrate why abusive men are always so keen to isolate their partners from family & friends.

Isolation of their victims is a top priority. Just so they can carry out their abuse with impunity.

I agree 100%.
I am not trained but I have known women who have been in abusive relationships. Like you say, the abuser wants to isolate the woman from the people who love her, it happens gradually, and often subtly, so the woman can think she is making the decisions.
Abusers are often charmers at the beginning of the relationship.

by JulesV Thu Aug 01, 2019 5:31 pm

Syl wrote:
Jules wrote:I am trained in all aspects of domestic violence issues. Including how to spot it a mile off, even when the signs are subtle. Horror stories like this illustrate why abusive men are always so keen to isolate their partners from family & friends.

Isolation of their victims is a top priority. Just so they can carry out their abuse with impunity.

I agree 100%.
I am not trained but I have known women who have been in abusive relationships. Like you say, the abuser wants to isolate the woman from the people who love her, it happens gradually, and often subtly, so the woman can think she is making the decisions.
Abusers are often charmers at the beginning of the relationship.

It's not heavy duty stuff. Some NHS employees get the occasional day off to go on training workshops (onsite or offsite) and spend the day listening to various speakers giving lectures about it. You usually get a nice lunch too.
Increasing awareness of the problem saves lives.

by Syl Thu Aug 01, 2019 5:48 pm

Jules wrote:
Syl wrote:

I agree 100%.
I am not trained but I have known women who have been in abusive relationships. Like you say, the abuser wants to isolate the woman from the people who love her, it happens gradually, and often subtly, so the woman can think she is making the decisions.
Abusers are often charmers at the beginning of the relationship.

It's not heavy duty stuff. Some NHS employees get the occasional day off to go on training workshops (onsite or offsite) and spend the day listening to various speakers giving lectures about it. You usually get a nice lunch too.
Increasing awareness of the problem saves lives.

I hope you dont take offence...but do you think the last line of your sig is appropriate considering you are well up on domestic violence. which often includes rape, and all the trauma that can bring.

by JulesV Thu Aug 01, 2019 5:57 pm

Syl wrote:
Jules wrote:

It's not heavy duty stuff. Some NHS employees get the occasional day off to go on training workshops (onsite or offsite) and spend the day listening to various speakers giving lectures about it. You usually get a nice lunch too.
Increasing awareness of the problem saves lives.

I hope you dont take offence...but do you think the last line of your sig is appropriate considering you are well up on domestic violence. which often includes rape, and all the trauma that can bring.

Yes I thought of that. In fact I will remove the last line after a day or so.
But first, I want to hammer home the consent bit. In a sarky way.

I am reasonably intelligent (well most days anyway lol) plus I am a moderate sort, politically.
It infuriates me that someone thinks they can dictate to me when to chortle, or not chortle.
My sig is sarky.

by Syl Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:05 pm

Jules wrote:
Syl wrote:

I hope you dont take offence...but do you think the last line of your sig is appropriate considering you are well up on domestic violence. which often includes rape, and all the trauma that can bring.

Yes I thought of that. In fact I will remove the last line after a day or so.
But first, I want to hammer home the consent bit. In a sarky way.

I am reasonably intelligent (well most days anyway lol) plus I am a moderate sort, politically.
It infuriates me that someone thinks they can dictate to me when to chortle, or not chortle.
My sig is sarky.

I know it was sarky and I know exactly why you did it, I just thought (and I'm glad you agree) it's inappropriate.

Why have you taken his comments to heart Jules? he often accuses people of things they are certainly not, he is the master of twisting peoples intentions.
I was called a liar and a bully by him recently, it's just par for the course if you interact with certain posters.
Dont let it bother you. x

by JulesV Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:19 pm

OK, you've convinced me.
I will defo remove the entire sig tonight.

I think the reason it annoyed me more is because I was being friendly to him, ATT, helping him to make it an interesting thread and trying to laugh along with him, thinking it was a funny anecdote.

The cops were not turned away, just politely told to sit somewhere discreet.
The staff are running a business, they want customers to come in.

The unpredictability & nastiness of didge's moods unsettles me !!

Loggin out now. x

by Sponsored content

Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'

Re: Mum 'starved by twisted husband who wanted size 0 wife ended up just five stones'