Grace Millane murder - do we believe the accused?

[Matthew Best]

The prosecution say the photos are of a dead body, so presumably that is at least consistent with what they look like.

The defence say she was alive when the photos were taken (at least, that's what they seem to be saying).

The only evidence either way is that they were time-stamped after the defendant searched Google for "hottest fire" and "Waitākere Ranges", which the prosecution say is evidence he was already looking for ways to dispose of the body.

From what I've heard I'd vote guilty (while conceding that I've only read what's been linked to on this site, and didn't really do much more than that).

 

[Nessie]

From the 2nd link both the Defence and Crown on the act of strangulation. Note the point I made earlier about the pressure to the arteries rendering a person unconscious instantly.

"Mr Brookie also said the absence of damage to Ms Millane's deep neck tissue supported a consensual encounter not an aggressive attack.
"A person who is being strangled against their will will fight, of course they will. If they can't use their hands they will fight in any way they can."
This morning Crown Solicitor for Auckland Brian Dickey told the jury someone couldn't possibly have defensive injuries if they'd quickly passed out; the court having heard this could take seconds if pressure was applied directly to the neck's arteries."

That just shows it was more likely the death was accidental than deliberate, but the law states that an act that is likely to cause death (which strangulation is) is still murder.

 

[Matthew Best]

That just shows it was more likely the death was accidental than deliberate,

I don't see that it does.

 

[cullennz]

That just shows it was more likely the death was accidental than deliberate, but the law states that an act that is likely to cause death (which strangulation is) is still murder.

Which says to at least me they will go manslaughter

 

[Matthew Best]

I'll be quite surprised if he doesn't go down for murder.

 

[Rolfe]

This is why I started the thread. I really don't know what to think. It's not clear what happened, it's not clear what he was thinking and all that has to fit into the legal framework.

I think what is potentially dangerous in more general terms is a finding that killing a woman in this way isn't necessarily murder. It's too damn easy to fake, and I think an article I linked to earlier was a case where a husband did exactly that but because he wasn't caareful enough he wasn't believed. But if you're more careful, then she asked me to do it, she enjoyed it, I had no idea she'd stopped breathing - scary territory.

 

[Vixen]

Playing devil's advocate, you could say that the defendant deliberately sought out a date who was into '50-shades of grey' fun and games so he would have a ready-made get-out clause to get erotic pleasure from killing her and abusing the corpse.

Two things about the Waitākere Ranges: (1) he mentioned to date no 2, [police told him] there were a lot of dead bodies buried there, and (2) he had search this before the death.

So it doesn't seem the defence's claim that that might have been a random 'I feel lucky' search as he suggests but a quite targetted one.

He also posted on her FB page she looked 'radiant and beautiful' the same evening. Given what happened, its sounds pretty creepy.

 

[Rolfe]

I think if the killing had been premeditated the arrangements for disposing of the body would also have been both premeditated and a lot better.

 

[LondonJohn]

That just shows it was more likely the death was accidental than deliberate, but the law states that an act that is likely to cause death (which strangulation is) is still murder.

I'd say not at all. You're confusing a) choking to the point of unconsciousness with b) choking to the point of death. The latter takes considerably longer. At the very least, 45 seconds longer. All during which time the "victim" is lying there unconscious, motionless, limp and unresponsive with their eyes closed.

If the aim of the "game" was choking to just up to the point of unconsciousness (and that IS the aim, by the way), then it's basically inexplicable as to why someone would not only choke the other person beyond that point and into unconsciousness (which would be understandable), but to then carry on choking for that minimum of 45 seconds more.

Oh and on the point of the lack of defensive wounds etc, I echo what the prosecution say in response: nobody is claiming that Millane might not have wanted to engage in erotic asphyxiation (and indeed there's evidence that she was into this sort of thing). So of course she would not have put up resistance as the defendant started choking her. However, she'd have implicity trusted him to choke her only to the point just before she fell into unconsciousness. If she'd done this sort of thing before, it's highly probable that she'd understand that sometimes the choking carries on a little too long into full unconsciousness, and I'd imagine this is a (minimal) risk that practitioners of this sort of thing accept.

So I can easily picture a situation where Millane readily consented to being choked in an erotic-asphyxiation game, and where she accepted that the defendant might momentarily render her unconscious, but that if/when that happened, he'd obviously remove his grip and she would return to consciousness quickly. However..... it's clear from the evidence that what actually must have happened is that the defendant DIDN'T release his grip when Millane fell unconscious. On the contrary, he must have maintained his grip for a very considerable period of time further, until Millane died.

And that, of course, would easily explain the absence of defensive injuries etc. Millane would have had no idea of what was to happen, and the only point at which everything changed took place when she was already unconscious.

 

[theprestige]

This is why I started the thread. I really don't know what to think. It's not clear what happened, it's not clear what he was thinking and all that has to fit into the legal framework.

I think what is potentially dangerous in more general terms is a finding that killing a woman in this way isn't necessarily murder.

I think it's important to recognize the fact that dying from risky sex play isn't necessarily murder.

Sex play of this type is one of a wide range of risky activities that many people engage in voluntarily. Accidents happen. Deaths do occur. There are many contexts in which a bad actor can make murder look like an accident.

I think it would be very dangerous to find that killing a woman in this way is necessarily murder. I think murder in these circumstances has to be proven the same way as murder in any other circumstances. Not being able to determine whether it's really murder isn't a good excuse to call it murder by default.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think if the killing had been premeditated the arrangements for disposing of the body would also have been both premeditated and a lot better.

Yep. I don't see premeditation at all. For lots of reasons, including the ones you give here.

Obviously any discussion of motive is a) speculative, and b) irrelevant to any assessment of guilt or non-guilt in any event. But if I were pushed to ascribe motive here, I suspect that (if I'm correct in my opinion that he has indeed committed murder) the defendant might have experienced powerful adrenaline-fueled feelings of control and dominance once he had his hands at Millane's throat; and that he was overcome with these intense feelings to the extent that he was compelled to maintain pressure on Millane's neck long beyond the point where she became unconscious.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think it's important to recognize the fact that dying from risky sex play isn't necessarily murder.

Sex play of this type is one of a wide range of risky activities that many people engage in voluntarily. Accidents happen. Deaths do occur. There are many contexts in which a bad actor can make murder look like an accident.

I think it would be very dangerous to find that killing a woman in this way is necessarily murder. I think murder in these circumstances has to be proven the same way as murder in any other circumstances. Not being able to determine whether it's really murder isn't a good excuse to call it murder by default.

I'll point out once again:

There's an extremely significant difference (in both time and effort) between

1) Choking someone into unconsciousness, and

2) Choking someone to death.

As I've also pointed out already, the aim of erotic asphyxiation is to become choked to the point just prior to falling into unconsciousness. If one is choked into unconsciousness, then it's absolutely obvious - to the choker (as well, of course, to the one being choked) - that the choking has gone just a bit too far for it to be effective in terms of heightened sexual arousal. I'd hope you'd understand that this is an absolute given.

And if you do understand that, then you'd also understand that the logical and reasonable thing for the choker to do at this point - assuming he genuinely has an interest in heightening his/her partner's arousal and has no interest in doing him/her any injury - is to release his/her grip from the partner's neck, in order for the partner to regain consciousness quickly.

What the choker does NOT do at that point - the point at which his/her partner falls limp, unconscious, unresponsive, eyes closed - is maintain his/her grip around the partner's neck for, at the very least, 45 seconds further. But that's precisely what the defendant, by definition, must have done.


In fact, can you point to any rational reason why a choker who a) was assisting a partner in erotic asphyxiation, and b) only had an interest in helping his/her partner attain sexual arousal, and had no interest in harming or injuring the partner....... would carry on choking the partner for a substantial time period after that partner fell into unconsciousness, rather than releasing his/her grip and allowing the partner to regain consciousness?

 

[theprestige]

I'll point out once again:

I've seen this and considered it. I don't find it very compelling. I haven't responded because I don't feel strongly about changing your mind on this point.

I'm responding now so that you know I've considered your points, and you don't have to keep trying to bring them to my attention.

There's an extremely significant difference (in both time and effort) between

1) Choking someone into unconsciousness, and

2) Choking someone to death.

I don't think the difference is all that significant, for drunk amateurs in the heat of the moment.

As I've also pointed out already, the aim of erotic asphyxiation is to become choked to the point just prior to falling into unconsciousness. If one is choked into unconsciousness, then it's absolutely obvious - to the choker (as well, of course, to the one being choked) - that the choking has gone just a bit too far for it to be effective in terms of heightened sexual arousal. I'd hope you'd understand that this is an absolute given.

It's not an absolute given. Some people like edging breathplay. Some people like being choked out. Drunk amateurs in the throes of passion aren't going to be delivering precision-engineered sexual experiences. It's not nefarious to earn less than a perfect 10.0 in the erotic breathplay event at the sexual olympics.

And if you do understand that, then you'd also understand that the logical and reasonable thing for the choker to do at this point - assuming he genuinely has an interest in heightening his/her partner's arousal and has no interest in doing him/her any injury - is to release his/her grip from the partner's neck, in order for the partner to regain consciousness quickly.

Again, drunk amateur.

And again, well-intentioned people get themselves and each other killed all the time during risky play.

This isn't even pure Kremlinology. It's Kremlinology, adulterated by a desire to fit a predetermined conclusion. You're inventing a whole theory of risky behavior that is less concerned with describing reality, than with describing a justification for charging him with murder.

What the choker does NOT do at that point - the point at which his/her partner falls limp, unconscious, unresponsive, eyes closed - is maintain his/her grip around the partner's neck for, at the very least, 45 seconds further. But that's precisely what the defendant, by definition, must have done.

Again, drunk amateur.

In fact, can you point to any rational reason why a choker who a) was assisting a partner in erotic asphyxiation, and b) only had an interest in helping his/her partner attain sexual arousal, and had no interest in harming or injuring the partner....... would carry on choking the partner for a substantial time period after that partner fell into unconsciousness, rather than releasing his/her grip and allowing the partner to regain consciousness?

Again, drunk amateur.

 

[Elaedith]

Yep. I don't see premeditation at all. For lots of reasons, including the ones you give here.

Obviously any discussion of motive is a) speculative, and b) irrelevant to any assessment of guilt or non-guilt in any event. But if I were pushed to ascribe motive here, I suspect that (if I'm correct in my opinion that he has indeed committed murder) the defendant might have experienced powerful adrenaline-fueled feelings of control and dominance once he had his hands at Millane's throat; and that he was overcome with these intense feelings to the extent that he was compelled to maintain pressure on Millane's neck long beyond the point where she became unconscious.

I agree with this. The point I find somewhat confusing is the distinction between meaning to cause bodily injury (intent) versus indifference to whether or not injury is caused (due to being entirely focused on one's own gratification).

His behaviour afterwards IMO is not within the bounds of 'normal' panic, even allowing for people reacting differently to an accidental death. His behaviour indicates focus on himself even after killing her, and lack of normal moral emotions (possibly indicating psychopathy). That supports the probability that he didn't care what was happening to her during the incident either. Whether the jury interprets that as intent to cause injury could be the difference between murder and manslaughter.

I'm also not clear if the jury is able to consider manslaughter as an alternative?

 

[Fixit]

This thread shows the peril the defendant faces. Posters are guessing and being driven by particular aspects that they judge to be important. I note the precision that LondonJohn applies to events when he or no one can know - in other words guess work. I don't think there is a place for guess work in a case like this. Because guess work is not Justice.There should be a strong warning to the Jury that if they can't decide don't guess, if they are not sure BRD then acquit.
Being driven by particular points is not considering the totality of the evidence which is the job of the Jury, individually the points then collectively. It's okay to say "I don't know, therefore I must say not guilty."
Having said all that - there is a point on which the pathologists agreed that doesn't require speculation. I think we may learn by the Judges summing up any hints of the man's previous history that drives the summing up 1 way or the other - when in fact it should be balanced - because like us, even the Judge does not know what happened in that room, it wasn't a stabbing, a prolonged physical attack where defensive wounds were left, for what we can say 2 people willingly met and undertook particular sex that 1 of them was looking for.

 

[Elaedith]

I don't think anyone here is trying to act as though on a jury. People are just speculating on the questions raised by the case.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think anyone here is trying to act as though on a jury. People are just speculating on the questions raised by the case.

Some people here seem to be arguing that in some cases of apparently accidental death, where the motive is not known, the law should default to treating it as murder.

It's not about trying to act as a jury. It's about what we, as citizens, think the law should be, and what juries should be called on to consider, in cases like these.

 

[Vixen]

There was that case in Shire Green, Sheffield where the mother and half-brother father throttled their kids for a good ten minutes and place black bags over their heads.

The boys aged 13 and 14 were found some time later by the emergency services in their beds. Despite the adults being considerably bigger and excessively brutal, the boys were still alive (although probably irreversibly brain damaged) and died in hospital.

This seems to indicate that strangling someone to death is not just a whoopsie-daisy! event but takes real a sustaining of pressure.

 

[Rolfe]

I said I found the prospect of it being clearly legal to kill a woman you're having sex with if you can make it look accicental to be disturbing. I didn't say I thought he should be found guilty on that account though.

 

[Fixit]

I said I found the prospect of it being clearly legal to kill a woman you're having sex with if you can make it look accicental to be disturbing. I didn't say I thought he should be found guilty on that account though.

No you didn't Rolfe. Not only are these kinds of sex acts perilous but so is deciphering intention or recklessness. Some of us might think it was too dangerous situation to enter into, when in fact its apparent it is a situation entered into with some excitement and perhaps the danger heightens that. There was a 'sex expert' who gave evidence, but I haven't read any details - although I know the Court has been overflowing with those wanting to watch and listen.
Again things seem in a bit of a rush for us, I imagine it is going to be hard for a Jury to decide.