It seems that the defence barrister’s assertion that Ms Telesford “could have died after a ‘kinky sex’ game” with her alleged murderer has been rejected by Dr Kenneth Shorrock, who examined the body.
He told the jury: “There was nothing which suggests this was a sex act.
“There are usually sex toys, mirrors and pornography.
“This is just an ordinary rather cluttered room with a body.
“If I exclude from my mind that this person was a transsexual, the issue does not appear.
“To put it simply, there was no evidence of kinky sex. If you take that out of the equation, you just have a strangled body.’
I suppose one has to admire the defence barrister’s tenacity; she has been hired to defend the alleged murderer, and that is precisely what she is doing.
Joanna Greenberg’s earlier quote was quite breathtaking in its display of cissexism, but this one surpasses even that with its combination of breezy assumptions and coy but helpful explanations:
She said: “People do indulge in acts of asphyxiation either auto or with a partner.
“It’s relatively unusual. They do it because it results in heightened sexual pleasure.
“There’s no way of knowing how common the practice is because you only ever come across it when someone dies from it.
“To put it bluntly, she was someone who indulged in kinky sex.
“Her dressing gown showed signs of perhaps quite vigorous sexual activity.
“It does not exclude the possibility that the strangulation was either self-inflicted or was part of a consensual act with a partner.”
I’m curious to know how Ms Greenberg can state with such authority that Kellie Telesford “indulged in kinky sex” (whatever “kinky sex” may be).
So now I find myself wondering if – when? – that old stalwart, the trans panic defence, will be wheeled out.