Grace Millane murder - do we believe the accused?

Fixit said:
As I wrote above the defence has the opportunity to say he told the truth in the 2nd instance and to this point he has not been exposed as having lied. He's either gone from thick to clever, or he panicked. Premeditation? Where did it start, when he panicked, or later? He clearly hadn't planned to kill a woman he'd never met, we know of 1 partner who was quite 'happy,' another that claimed not to be but whose subsequent behaviour indicated otherwise. If he was going to kill Grace deliberately where was he going to take his next date?

My opinions on this are tempered by not having read 50 shades of Grey and being surprised by these sort of hookups - the reason I question whether there is some kind of algorithm encoded in the Tinder 'advertising' for partners. Again, 1 who wanted to have her neck pressured, 1 who claimed she didn't then a 3rd we may never know about.

Monday will be interesting. I think the man is Australian by the way.
Click to expand...



Well firstly. of course the defence will want to argue that his second story was the truth (i.e. a consensual sex game that went wrong resulting in her accidental death, upon which he panicked). But by definition that would mean that he lied in the first version of events that he gave the police (i.e. that they spent the night together and then she left of her own accord). And that's a big problem for the defence.

And secondly, there's absolutely no requirement for there to be premeditation for this to be classified as murder. The only requirement is that there was intent on his part (which is to say that he knew - or ought to have known - that his actions would result in at least very serious injury to her). That's all the prosecution need to demonstrate.

I'd also point out that it actually takes a very long time - well over a minute - to strangle or suffocate someone to death. The movies make it appear that you can kill someone in literally a matter of seconds, but that's simply not true. It's very difficult to "accidentally" kill someone through manual strangulation or suffocation. You need to keep applying constriction or pressure to the neck or mouth/nose well beyond the point where the person has ceased struggling.
 
Fixit said:
As I wrote above the defence has the opportunity to say he told the truth in the 2nd instance and to this point he has not been exposed as having lied. He's either gone from thick to clever, or he panicked. Premeditation? Where did it start, when he panicked, or later? He clearly hadn't planned to kill a woman he'd never met, we know of 1 partner who was quite 'happy,' another that claimed not to be but whose subsequent behaviour indicated otherwise. If he was going to kill Grace deliberately where was he going to take his next date?

My opinions on this are tempered by not having read 50 shades of Grey and being surprised by these sort of hookups - the reason I question whether there is some kind of algorithm encoded in the Tinder 'advertising' for partners. Again, 1 who wanted to have her neck pressured, 1 who claimed she didn't then a 3rd we may never know about.

Monday will be interesting. I think the man is Australian by the way.
Click to expand...
He has a distinctive Australian accent. Beyond that I had not realised.
 
theprestige said:
Do you know anything about 50 Shades? Reading it actually makes you less experienced at BDSM. If that was her source of truth, no wonder she's dead.
Click to expand...

LOL I went to see it one afternoon after work as the cinema was next door. The place was full of teenage girls, mostly. I was absolutely bored stiff.

His claim she wanted 'Fifty Shades of Gray' [sic] sex is laughable!

It's about as daring as Mary Poppins singing 'A Spoonful of Sugar helps the medicine go down'.
 
Fixit said:
You seem to be mistaking the discussion of possibilities as some sort of challenge?

That he was trying to avoid being caught was most likely the reason he threw away his phone, moved the body and didn't ring emergency services. That seems pretty clear.

You must have missed the evidence that he admitted that he and Grace took photos of one another. The time of the photos in respect as to when Grace died, isn't clear. There was a claim they were after she died, but that now isn't clear.

They may, or may not have been crocodile tears. I'm sure once he made the claim that he vomited had police found he did not would have been used against him - as a major indication that he was still lying 'after he came clean.'

I'm not positional about my opinion. I've already changed my mind once, and may again. At the moment he had one partner who said she was happy with the way the accused pressured her neck, the next claimed she wasn't happy with - she had a boyfriend and exchanged some 700 texts with the accused after their hookup. The accused's second statement to this point has not been derailed. The police would want to show he lied in his second statement but their case is closed and that did not happen. The first witness Monday is meant to be a forensic pathologist. A rumour circulates that a former boyfriend of Grace's may give evidence.
Click to expand...

His exes describing their SM sessions indicates it is his foible? Let's see if it turns out to be hers as well.
 
Samson said:
He has a distinctive Australian accent. Beyond that I had not realised.
Click to expand...

His date after Grace testified he told her he was an international level sportsman in Australia. I'm guessing from his build in the cctv film he is a rugby player. Maybe he is well-known, hence the anonymity.
 
LondonJohn said:
Well firstly. of course the defence will want to argue that his second story was the truth (i.e. a consensual sex game that went wrong resulting in her accidental death, upon which he panicked). But by definition that would mean that he lied in the first version of events that he gave the police (i.e. that they spent the night together and then she left of her own accord). And that's a big problem for the defence.

And secondly, there's absolutely no requirement for there to be premeditation for this to be classified as murder. The only requirement is that there was intent on his part (which is to say that he knew - or ought to have known - that his actions would result in at least very serious injury to her). That's all the prosecution need to demonstrate.

I'd also point out that it actually takes a very long time - well over a minute - to strangle or suffocate someone to death. The movies make it appear that you can kill someone in literally a matter of seconds, but that's simply not true. It's very difficult to "accidentally" kill someone through manual strangulation or suffocation. You need to keep applying constriction or pressure to the neck or mouth/nose well beyond the point where the person has ceased struggling.
Click to expand...

Yes the defence has and will argue it was accidental. I was referring to your points about buying the bag and other such things as showing deliberation as to intent. I'm merely saying that the defence will say it was the result of panic and there was no aforethought to what they will maintain was accidental.

Yes no premeditation required, but certainly no evidence of premeditation which would have put the accused in a more difficult position.

I gather that from the first partner's evidence that what the defendant did 'was just right' that the pressure on the neck was maintained deliberately for an extended period, which lessens the impact of the overall time of the pressure on the neck. Was 3m40 'just right' but 3m50 the disaster point? That will be a matter for the Jury. But I'm sure we will hear more about that. More than likely the defence pathologist will say the period of time was less than the Crown's pathologist.
 
Vixen said:
His date after Grace testified he told her he was an international level sportsman in Australia. I'm guessing from his build in the cctv film he is a rugby player. Maybe he is well-known, hence the anonymity.
Click to expand...


That's interesting. If that's the case I don't imagine his name will remain secret forever.

ETA: I see from Vixen's next post that the "name suppression" appears to have ended and I for one have never heard of him.
 
Last edited:
The suspected killer of British backpacker Grace Millane wrote her a creepy message on social media hours before she died, it emerged yesterday.

Jesse Kempson, 26, who has appeared in a New Zealand court charged with her murder , left a comment on Grace’s latest Facebook profile picture saying she was “beautiful very radiant”.
Click to expand...
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/british-backpacker-murder-suspect-left-13714827

Apparently, this guy is described as a fantasist by a former flatmate.

https://en.mogaznews.com/World-News...rder-suspect-describes-him-as-a-blatant-.html Jesse Kempson, 26, once shared a flat with three journalism graduates in Auckland and he was asked to leave after just six weeks after his three female flatmates became 'uncomfortable' when he was present.



One of the flatmates, who asked not to be identified, now lives in London but said she was sickened when she learned of the accused man's identity.

'It almost made me ill' she said. 'I remembered him immediately from when we all shared a flat together in Auckland in 2016.

'He was a fantasist and a liar. I caught him out big time and it made the three of us very unhappy that he was in our home.'
Click to expand...

He played soft ball for multiple teams in Australia and New Zealand.

https://wikiaboutworld.com/jesse-shane-kempson-bio-wiki/ Jesse Shane Kempson Facts
Jesse Shane Kempson, 26, is accused of murdering British backpacker Grace Millane, 22, in New Zealand
The man had two stints living in Australia, during which he played softball for multiple teams
A former teammate said he was ‘creepy’ and ‘his life revolved around girls, talking to girls’
Kempson, who is believed to have stayed with his mother in Australia, also fathered a child in the country
Family members have said he is not currently in a relationship with the child’s mother
Click to expand...
 
LondonJohn said:
I'd also point out that it actually takes a very long time - well over a minute - to strangle or suffocate someone to death. The movies make it appear that you can kill someone in literally a matter of seconds, but that's simply not true. It's very difficult to "accidentally" kill someone through manual strangulation or suffocation. You need to keep applying constriction or pressure to the neck or mouth/nose well beyond the point where the person has ceased struggling.
Click to expand...


I'm interested in this partly because of its relevance to the David Gilroy thread. There are some similarities between the two cases in that in both cases the apparent strangling did not appear to be premeditated and in both cases the killer appears to have made a calculated decision not to call an ambulance and/or the cops and say "this had happened and I absolutely did not plan for this to happen" but decided to conceal the body in the hope of remaining undetected.

I think this is probably the best expert evidence we're going to get in relation to this point for either of the cases.

Dr Clare Healy, a forensic physician, gave evidence this afternoon via video link from Australia. An expert in non-fatal strangulation, she explained how sensitive the human brain is to oxygen deprivation. "Brain cells do not survive without oxygen."

She told the court a person's neck could be "compressed relatively easily" and if pressure continued it may result in death. "The signs and symptoms will depend on the amount of pressure and how long it is applied for," she said. "Recovery may occur after pressure is released ... If pressure is continued death will arise."

Healy said just 2kg of pressure on a person's neck may interfere with blood flow. This, she said, was equivalent to the amount of pressure required to crush a can of Coke. Some 5kg of pressure would be required to restrict the blood flow in the arteries, she added. A person may lose consciousness due to pressure on their neck in as little as 10 to 20 seconds, Healy said.
Death, she said, could result any time from 90 seconds to six minutes.

Crown solicitor Brian Dickey asked Healy if blood could drip from someone's nose as a result of strangulation. "Yes, I think it could. It's not something I have seen," she said. "I understand it can happen." The accused claims when he saw Millane was dead on the floor of his apartment she had blood coming from her nose. Under cross-examination by the accused's lawyer Ian Brookie, Healy said a person could die from pressure to their neck in one or all of four ways - restriction of the veins, arteries, windpipe or pressure on a small cluster of nerve cells.
Click to expand...


The question of how long it takes to strangle someone to death is important in both cases because of the question, was there a point when you realised you were killing her when you could still have pulled back? Ninety seconds as a minimum certainly seems long enough if the strangulation was happening during sex (speaking as a non-expert, I hasten to add). I think it also seems long enough if the strangulation was by someone who had completely lost his cool during an argument. (Although of course since Gilroy never admitted to the killing the defence never got the chance to enter a plea of culpable homicide based on his having lost his temper and the victim being dead before the red mist cleared.)

The other point of interest in relation to the Gilroy case is the time-frame during which the murder must have been committed. The prosecution said 20 minutes. Gilroy has been trying to claim seven minutes. If the actual killing might only have taken 90 seconds I think even the seven-minute time window (which I don't necessarily believe) could be long enough. I might take that point to the Gilroy thread.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
That's interesting. If that's the case I don't imagine his name will remain secret forever.

ETA: I see from Vixen's next post that the "name suppression" appears to have ended and I for one have never heard of him.
Click to expand...
From memory name suppression ending was successfully appealed.
Technically a New Zealander could be prosecuted in New Zealand for naming the accused on this forum.
 
Last edited:
The offender was very drunk when he choked the victim to death. That should be an aggravating factor which automatically made it murder even if it was just consensual sex gone wrong.

The idea that he might have gotten away with a "temporary insanity" defence is sickening.
 
psionl0 said:
The offender was very drunk when he choked the victim to death. That should be an aggravating factor which automatically made it murder even if it was just consensual sex gone wrong.

The idea that he might have gotten away with a "temporary insanity" defence is sickening.
Click to expand...
You are conflating this with drink driving which is a criminal offence in New Zealand. Choking for enhanced eroticism is not currently legislated against, so engaging while drunk is not apparently the business of the state.
Because of witness 1, I am currently of the view this was an accident as claimed. I also heard all testimony from witness 2 who engaged in completely consensual activity until he "sat" on her. She had drunk a bottle of wine minus possibly a glass he may have drunk. Unpacking all that is ultimately for the jury.
I reckon he will take the stand.
 
Samson said:
You are conflating this with drink driving which is a criminal offence in New Zealand.
Click to expand...
No I am not. The legal system too often regards intoxication as a mitigating factor in a crime when it should be mandated to be an aggraving factor.
 
Because Grace got drunk with him and went off to his room of her own accord for presumably consensual sex, he could well be found not guilty of murder. OTOH because of the high profile nature of the case, her parents being wealthy property developers (iirc) NZ will be keen to make sure justice is being seen to be done, so he could well be found to be guilty of murder. It'll be hard to prove premeditation though. My sixpence piece says he'll get a lesser charge of culpable manslaughter and concealing a body.
 
I think the wealthy property developer theme is completely irrelevant.
The jurors have total control, property developers are not loved by the common plebescite who comprise the jury pool.
Try again. I do not trust juries as far as I can kick them for obvious reasons, but they are dumb in a predictable fashion.
 
Samson said:
I think the wealthy property developer theme is completely irrelevant.
The jurors have total control, property developers are not loved by the common plebescite who comprise the jury pool.
Try again. I do not trust juries as far as I can kick them for obvious reasons, but they are dumb in a predictable fashion.
Click to expand...

And predictably they'll find him not guilty as juries have a tendency to feel sorry for the guy in the dock and mistakenly believe they need to be 100% certain, not 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt', especially in cases where there were no witnesses. Rape defendants nearly always get off, so I think this guy will, too, for the same reason.
 
Vixen said:
And predictably they'll find him not guilty as juries have a tendency to feel sorry for the guy in the dock and mistakenly believe they need to be 100% certain, not 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt', especially in cases where there were no witnesses. Rape defendants nearly always get off, so I think this guy will, too, for the same reason.
Click to expand...



Wrong. This case is NOT a "he said/she said" situation, as is the case in many rape trials (and which is the main reason for so many acquittals in such trials).

My (provisional) opinion is that he will (safely) be convicted of murder. IMO the only other possibility here is that he'll be convicted of manslaughter (provided that's on the indictment as well - I'm not sure of that). IMO there's a close-to-zero chance that he'll walk free from the courtroom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom