• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Grace Millane murder - do we believe the accused?

Belz... said:
No need to be snarky. I'm saying that the idea that he wasn't trying to kill her isn't far-fetched.
Click to expand...

It actually wasn't intended to be snarky, but reading it over now, it's extremely snarky, yeah. Sorry about that. I was trying to be pithy with just a garnish of persuasive sarcasm. Missed the mark.
 
TomB said:
I've never understood the beating or strangling thing during sex. I always thought "rough sex" just meant unusually vigorous sex, but I guess I was wrong.

I can see both Prestige's and Isissxn points of view in a theoretical light.

In the US, the prosecution is supposed to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. For murder, I guess part of that is intent. I'm not sure it's a good idea in the big picture to relax that requirement.

At the same time, It creates a path to murdering a significant other with a lesser sentence. Of course, using that defense would actually make it harder to completely get away with it.
Click to expand...

I definitely see theprestige's point about intent. It's not like I think every "rough sex" death is a deliberate murder. I don't think that. I do think that many of them go a bit beyond "accident," however, because in choking and beating cases (for example), the dom should conceivably be able to see that things are getting out of control before anyone is actually dead. If he/she fails to notice this, I think that situation is worse than other types of fatal accidents that have been referenced in this thread, even if he/she did not have any actual intent to kill. Don't choke and beat someone if you can't do it safely and while paying continual attention to your sub's state. That is an agonizing death, and it should carry more of a penalty than plain old mishaps.


ETA - I don't "get" the hardcore stuff either, TomB. It seems very bizarre and frightening to me. However, I don't let that fact control what I believe other people should be able to do, contrary to how I may have initially come across. People get their jollies in all sorts of ways, and I don't begrudge them that. I just think that if you're into doing dangerous, unconventional ****, you need to be really sure that you know what you're doing and you're looking out for your partner's safety. The crazier your fantasy, the more that principle needs to be applied.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I'm not sure that's a loophole. It seems to me that the law should provide for people doing risky stuff consensually, and seeing it go wrong, without having to call it murder.

Why is it important to you that we treat risky but consensual sex games as attempted murder?
Click to expand...

Because it is a loophole for killers. Just like any other risky behavior; people can do it themselves, but if you do it to them, face responsibility. Why shouldn't you?

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Because it is a loophole for killers. Just like any other risky behavior; people can do it themselves, but if you do it to them, face responsibility. Why shouldn't you?

Hans
Click to expand...

You shouldn't, but that's what the crime of involuntary manslaughter is - killing someone due to a reckless and negligent act but without the specific intention of killing them. It's not a loophole; it's fundamental to the definition of murder that it involves intent. The job of the court, presumably, is to determine whether the defence of lack of intent is valid, and to judge on that basis between murder and manslaughter. In this case, on the basis of what incomplete information I've seen, it seems unlikely that they'll buy the accused's story.

Dave
 
It appears the pair were extremely drunk when they headed back to his hotel room (it was her birthday next day). I notice in the cctv footage the snake takes the opportunity to rummage through her handbag whilst she goes to the Ladies.

Note the ultra tight trousers covering his fat legs and overweight torso. That is a crime against clothes!
 
I have been following it a little bit in the media here. I can't see him walking away from this, the cover up speaks far too much towards guilt. Sadly he's probably not going to get anything higher than 18 years at most.
 
Sorry I started the ball rolling and then just left it! That was a very interesting article Samson. I suppose I'm fairly gobsmacked in general at the "dating" practices of today's young people.

I came across this other article from back in the summer. The case highlighted at the start of that has many similarities with the Millane case.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/25/fatal-hateful-rise-of-choking-during-sex

Vicky Wynne Jones was actually murdered by her husband, and he also fell back on the "sex game gone wrong" defence, and again it was his behaviour afterwards that was so damning. Like the Millane accused he his the body and tried to cover up the killing, and he was also having affairs. There is a suggestion in that case that there might not have been any sex game at all and that it was a premeditated murder because Vicky had found out about the other women.

In the Millane case I don't think he invited her to his flat intending to kill her. I think the body-disposal would have been better prepared-for and better thought-through if that had been the case. And I think he was really into strangulation during sex, as these other dates of his seem to indicate - although to what extent they are all telling the full and honest truth I don't know. I'm still waiting for any evidence that Grace was a willing partner in the strangulation though, I suppose some evidence may well come out about that later.

I suppose in general I agree with isissxn, with the caveat that whether or not she agreed to be strangled might be quite an important point.

isissxn said:
I believe he got off on murdering her. He may not have set out with a plan to do that, but he got excited and crossed the line at some point. I base this theory on his unconscionable behavior afterward.
Click to expand...


But if it was an "accidental" killing during a sexual encounter, however non-consensual, and he didn't actually intend to kill her, is that actually murder? And if it isn't, then does his attempt to conceal the body turn it into murder?
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Sorry I started the ball rolling and then just left it! That was a very interesting article Samson. I suppose I'm fairly gobsmacked in general at the "dating" practices of today's young people.

I came across this other article from back in the summer. The case highlighted at the start of that has many similarities with the Millane case.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/25/fatal-hateful-rise-of-choking-during-sex

Vicky Wynne Jones was actually murdered by her husband, and he also fell back on the "sex game gone wrong" defence, and again it was his behaviour afterwards that was so damning. Like the Millane accused he his the body and tried to cover up the killing, and he was also having affairs. There is a suggestion in that case that there might not have been any sex game at all and that it was a premeditated murder because Vicky had found out about the other women.

In the Millane case I don't think he invited her to his flat intending to kill her. I think the body-disposal would have been better prepared-for and better thought-through if that had been the case. And I think he was really into strangulation during sex, as these other dates of his seem to indicate - although to what extent they are all telling the full and honest truth I don't know. I'm still waiting for any evidence that Grace was a willing partner in the strangulation though, I suppose some evidence may well come out about that later.

I suppose in general I agree with isissxn, with the caveat that whether or not she agreed to be strangled might be quite an important point.




But if it was an "accidental" killing during a sexual encounter, however non-consensual, and he didn't actually intend to kill her, is that actually murder? And if it isn't, then does his attempt to conceal the body turn it into murder?
Click to expand...

Concealing a body and preventing a burial is a crime in its own right. Murder only applies to method of death.

Having a suitcase large enough to conceal the body of a slightly overweight woman could indicate forethought.
 
Vixen said:
Concealing a body and preventing a burial is a crime in its own right.
Click to expand...


That's perfectly true. Although I'm unaware of any of the people convicted of murdering someone and then hiding the body actually being convicted and sentenced for that as a separate crime. David Gilroy, Ian Simms, James Dunleavy and Nat Fraser are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Does anyone have any information to the contrary?

Vixen said:
Murder only applies to method of death.
Click to expand...


Does anyone actually know if this is true? Certainly in the Gilroy case he could have made a good defence to get the crime down to culpable homicide. However he chose to deny all knowledge of what had happened to the victim so that defence was obviously denied to him. I'm not entirely sure how that works.

Vixen said:
Having a suitcase large enough to conceal the body of a slightly overweight woman could indicate forethought.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure having a large suitcase isn't evedence of premeditation unless it was acquired very shortly before the killing.
 
I'll say the same thing I said in the "Oopsie daisy wrong apartment my bad" cop shooting thread.

If the "accident" is functionally the same as just committing the act and lying about it after the fact it's still murder.

As in if this man did just straight up strangle this woman what would objectively different from an outside perspective?

Nothing? Then it's a distinction without difference.

Letting "Oh silly me I made a mistake" into the legal system with zero way of disproving it turns the entire criminal justice system into basically asking people "Hey do you want to be considered a criminal?" and having to take their word for it.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure the legal distinction is framed like that. Murder requires a mens rea, an intention to commit the act. If the accused succeeds in creating reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury that he had the mens rea, then as far as I know it's not murder.

I don't think there was premeditation here, and I have a great deal of doubt as to whether there was actual mens rea even for the instant it takes for that to happen. However I have a lot of sympathy with the view that says, if the negligence that led to the death was extreme then it's arguable that it should be murder. It's just that I don't think that's what the law says. I think the law would put it on the high end of culpable homicide and perhaps the sentence might be comparable to a murder sentence. Maybe we're talking about how we think the law ought to be as opposed to how it actually is.
 
I think it's more probable that he was recklessly indifferent as to whether he harmed/killed her than that he planned to do so. Once the indifference reaches a certain level I don't know that there is that much distinction morally between not caring whether you are harming somebody or not and intentionally harming them.

I don't see how the actions afterwards could make it murder, but it might cause the jury to be likely to see it that way - that is, attempting to conceal what happened could be taken as an indication of guilt.
 
The pathologist explains that post mortem bruising is very hard to create due to absence of blood pressure in the veins. Prior to the morning break he describes pre mortem bruising 8 cm by 10cm to the neck area above the shoulder, and also bruising to the inner left arm.

The female witness was cross examined by defence then reexamined by prosecution. There are very strict requirements to not make observations that could lead to her identification, but she was extremely credible, articulate, and made an extended oration at the end explaining she never approached the police, and did not want to be there.
I am left doubting the wisdom of the defence strategy to suggest she was making it all up, indeed if all she said was true it paints a picture of an insecure man, who had a great job at first encounter, but no job at the second. The 708 text messages are explained by a wish to engage at a level where he would not turn up unexpectedly when she was with other friends.
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
I think it's more probable that he was recklessly indifferent as to whether he harmed/killed her than that he planned to do so. Once the indifference reaches a certain level I don't know that there is that much distinction morally between not caring whether you are harming somebody or not and intentionally harming them.

I don't see how the actions afterwards could make it murder, but it might cause the jury to be likely to see it that way - that is, attempting to conceal what happened could be taken as an indication of guilt.
Click to expand...

This is basically what I was trying to say in all my earlier wittering on.

I think my personal disgust with these types of activities may have come through and clouded my message. I didn't mean for that to happen. There are lots of things that disgust me that I still believe should be perfectly legal and acceptable for people who like them.
 
I think he's going down.

He might be telling the truth about what happened, but he appears to have lied so much before and after the event that the jury might well just decide that whatever he says is just as likely to be a lie as the truth and disregard everything, which just leaves the evidence that he killed her, which is irrefutable.
 
I think you're right, unless there's a specific point of law that is explained to the jury whereby lack of mens rea or something like that gets him out of a murder conviction. It's possible the jury might decide that mens rea wasn't present. I kind of hope it doesn't come down to that, because the vengeful harpy part of me says he needs to go down for murder.
 
The rest of the pathologist cross was essentially
1. There was no preexisting condition apparent, she was a normal healthy 22 year old
2. Her blood alcohol was 122 mg per liter
3. There was no damage to bones
4. There was a deep internal bruise about 8 by 6 cm present only on the left side of the throat.
5. Sustained pressure for 4 to 5 minutes would be needed to cause death.
6. Similar coloured bruises were constrained to both inner arms suggesting solid restraint.
7. Fingernail scrapings were taken but no data was presented in court. Conclusion, no accused dna found to suggest she was fighting him off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom