Grace Millane murder - do we believe the accused?

Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...

What about the prospect of it being clearly legal to kill someone by accident during sex? Or by accident during any kind of risky play?
 
Matthew Best said:
I am struggling to see how you come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

I don't. It may describe 'I'm not sure but I don't want him to get away with something.' I hope the possibility of that looms large in the Judges instructions. I've seen a prosecutor rub his fingertips together in front of a Jury and say 'there must be something.'What was he really saying? - one interpretation is that he was telling the Jury there was something that he knew which they didn't and they good safely could convict.
Eventually some of these cases end up in the 'safety' of manslaughter'. Neither Counsel have said manslaughter but from memory I think the Judge must explain the definition to the Jury and leave that as a possible verdict.
 
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but all my remarks and thoughts about this case, have been about this case and this case only, not other, unknown, cases - or some amorphous group of "some cases of accidental death".
 
Fixit said:
Eventually some of these cases end up in the 'safety' of manslaughter'. Neither Counsel have said manslaughter but from memory I think the Judge must explain the definition to the Jury and leave that as a possible verdict.
Click to expand...


Is there actually an offence called manslaughter in New Zealand?
 
Rolfe said:
Is there actually an offence called manslaughter in New Zealand?
Click to expand...

Yes it will be in our Crimes Act 1961 which you can find on google, or I shall look it up later. A person can be sentenced up to life.
 
Matthew Best said:
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but all my remarks and thoughts about this case, have been about this case and this case only, not other, unknown, cases - or some amorphous group of "some cases of accidental death".
Click to expand...

That seems like a bad approach. Ideally, we want to see a consistent rule of law, that applies equally across all offenses in the same grouping. Post hoc "adjustment" of the law to fit a single specific case seems like a bad idea.
 
Thank you, I just wanted to get the legal term right. Some countries call it manslaughter, some don't. I'd had it in my mind that New Zealand was in the latter category bu obviously I had misremembered.
 
Neither defence nor prosecution asked for an option for manslaughter, both seem to be going for the jackpot. I don't know if this leaves the judge the option to call for this as a possible verdict.
 
How does someone fall asleeep in the shower? Doesnt that suggest standing upright?
In the bath ,sure,but then again not for a number of hours,you soon wake up when water gets cold.

I vote guilty.
 
theprestige said:
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.


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


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.


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.


Again, drunk amateur.


Again, drunk amateur.
Click to expand...



Nope. To me, "drunk amateur" cannot at all explain carrying on choking someone for a long period of time (at least 45 seconds longer, but even the defence's own witness estimate 2-3 minutes longer) after the person whom you're choking has become unconscious, limp, unresponsive with their eyes closed.

I'll say again (and I know you disagree, but I think it bears repeating): it's one thing to choke somebody to unconsciousness within the confines of performing erotic asphyxiation - even though this by definition takes things further than required for erotic asphyxiation*.

If Person A chokes Person B as part of a sex game involving erotic asphyxiation, it will be blindingly obvious to Person A exactly when Person B becomes unconscious. It may take a matter of mere seconds for Person A to choke Person B such that they fall unconscious. It may take several tens of seconds. But either way, there's (IMO) no chance that Person A, with his/her hands around Person B's neck, would fail to notice the point when Person B goes limp, closes his/her eyes and becomes unresponsive.

And when that point is reached, I submit that Person A - if he/she really is only intent on heightening Person B's sexual arousal through this technique and has no intent on harming Person B - would fairly immediately release his/her choke grip on Person B's neck, thereby allowing Person B to regain consciousness fairly quickly.

What, IMO, Person A would NOT do at the point when Person B visibly falls unconscious (again, if Person A really is only intent on heightening Person B's sexual arousal through this technique and has no intent on harming Person B) is to continue choking Person B - not just for several seconds or even up to 20-30 seconds longer, but for a minimum of 45 seconds longer, and more likely somewhere between 1 and 3 minutes longer..

And this, to me, is the crux of the matter in respect of the medical evidence and the certain actions of the defendant (certain in respect of the fact that he MUST by definition have continued to choke Millane for something between 45 seconds and 3 minutes after she fell unconscious). I just can't see this prolonged extension of the choke hold beyond unconsciousness compatible in any way with either a) a person whose sole intent was to try to facilitate the heightened sexual arousal of the person he was choking, or b) some sort of imprecision borne of having had too much to drink (and btw, the defendant had had several drinks that evening, yes - but he was in no way falling-down drunk or even unstable-drunk).

I guess, in the first instance, we'll see what the jury has to make of this issue....



* And again, I say "by definition" you've gone too far if the person you're choking lapses into unconsciousness, because of course once the person you're choking is unconscious, there's no chance whatsoever of any level of heightened sexual arousal. The aim of the game is to take the person to a point just before they fall unconscious.
 
Fixit said:
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.
Click to expand...




Uh say what?

Firstly, are you referring to my references to timings, and specifically the time taken to kill someone by choking them, above and beyond the time when you've already choked them into unconsciousness?

If so, that not sheer guesswork, you know. Those timings are based on medical research in this whole area. And again, you might be interested in understanding that even the defence's own expert in this area estimated that it would easily take more than a minute, and probably somewhere between 2 and 3 minutes, for someone to choke another person between choking them into unconsciousness and choking them to death.

And secondly, there are such things as informed deduction and deductive reasoning. I realise you're using the word "guess" as a pejorative term, in order to support a position that if a jury (or, for that matter, an internet commentator) has to rely on "guesses" rather than empirical facts, then necessarily this introduces sufficient doubt as to require acquittal.

But these are not just plucked-out-of-thin-air "guesses" we're dealing with....
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...



I don't think anyone - least of all me - is claiming or saying (or even implying) such a thing.

But if you do think that this is my position, then a) I'd suggest you read back through the several posts I've made, more carefully this time, and b) I can understand why this debate has been becoming so confusing of late.
 
theprestige said:
What about the prospect of it being clearly legal to kill someone by accident during sex? Or by accident during any kind of risky play?
Click to expand...



Oh boy.

Of course if the evidence supports the narrative of nothing more than an unblameworthy accident, then that's where the matter ends.

But it's the contention of me and of some others in this thread that the evidence actually does not support an accident-based narrative.

For me, the evidence in favour of, at the very least, manslaughter - but IMO murder - consists of a) the deduced fact that the defendant MUST have carried on choking Millane for a considerable time period (between 45 seconds and 3 minutes) after she became unconscious; and b) the defendant's various actions after Millane's death - including the careful researching, planning and executing of the removal and burial of her body, the (apparent) fact that he took photos of her naked body, the fact that he took himself out on another Tinder date the very next evening (while Millane's body was in the boot of his hire car, no less....), and his lies to the police (which only changed after he was confronted with evidence proving his lies).

And once again, I submit that there's a massive difference between choking someone into unconsciousness - which is already, by definition, choking someone beyond the point at which that person can experience heightened sexual arousal - and carrying on choking that person (even though it must be clear that the person has become limp and unresponsive with closed eyes) for a further 45 seconds to 3 minutes.

Count off 45 seconds and then carry on counting up to 3 minutes. They both represent a lot of time to carry on clamping your hands round an limp, unresponsive, unconscious person's neck and continuing to choke them.
 
Rolfe said:
Thank you, I just wanted to get the legal term right. Some countries call it manslaughter, some don't. I'd had it in my mind that New Zealand was in the latter category bu obviously I had misremembered.
Click to expand...



The law in most countries which were formerly colonies of the UK is usually broadly based on England&Wales law, particularly in the area of definitions of criminal offences and the judicial process in general. I think, though, that each country will have developed its own version of case law based on that particular country's precedent cases.
 
It is just reported they are close to a verdict 4 1/2 hours in. They have asked one question about timelines of applying pressure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom