Grace Millane murder - do we believe the accused?

Well I picked that one wrong.

All good.

There will be the obvious appeals though.

Why has the nasty piece of **** still got name suppression?
 
cullennz said:
Well I picked that one wrong.

All good.

There will be the obvious appeals though.

Why has the nasty piece of **** still got name suppression?
Click to expand...



Seems like the jury's view of the evidence coincided with mine......

But yes, it's absolutely time to name the convicted man now.


And it's interesting that the jury asked for a reminder of neck pressure timelines. As I tried to point out so many times, I think it was damning to the defendant that it takes so much longer, once the victim has been choked into unconsciousness, to actually choke them to death. No drunken abberation. No "sex game gone accidentally wrong". No intent on his part simply to cause her increased sexual arousal and to avoid inflicting injury upon her.

No - actually the continuation of a choke hold applied to Millane's neck far, far beyond the point where she lost consciousness and became limp and unresponsive..... demonstrates clear intent on his part to cause her serious injury or death. Guilty of murder.
 
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12287551

Interesting question from the Jury indicating confusion around application of pressure and its timing. All imprecise guesswork - all it ever could be.

'They asked: "Does 'when he applied pressure' refer to when he started to apply pressure at the beginning or can it refer to any time when he applied pressure?"

Justice Moore said: "It is not limited to the beginning. It can be at any time during the application of force leading to death."

Quite the Walter Mitty, but no apparent violence previously.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12287282
 
Last edited:
Fixit said:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12287551

Interesting question from the Jury indicating confusion around application of pressure and its timing. All imprecise guesswork - all it ever could be.
Click to expand...



*sigh*

Look: it's inescapably (and provably) true that it takes a very significant additional period of time - additional, that is, to the time it takes to choke a person into unconsciousness - to actually choke someone to death. Yes, of course there are variances in the precise time in seconds; but that's only to be expected, since quite a few variables come into play here.

But irrespective of this, it's beyond doubt that once a person has been choked into unconsciousness, it MUST take a minimum of 45 seconds and a maximum of as much as 3 minutes of additional choking to actually cause death.

And this means that the defendant convicted man MUST have choked Millane to the point where she became unconscious - limp, unresponsive, uncommunicative, eyes closed - but then continued choking her for something between 45 seconds and 3 minutes further until he caused her death.

That's important. That's not anything like a "rookie mistake". That's not "a sex game gone accidentally wrong". Instead, that can only demonstrate clear intent on the part of the defendant to cause Millane serious injury or death. Otherwise, if he genuinely had been only interested in helping Millane achieve a heightened level of sexual arousal, why wouldn't he have removed his choke grip shortly after he noticed - as he must have noticed - that she'd lost consciousness?

That's murder.
 
cullennz said:
The fathers statement for those that won't have seen it.

The bloke continues to be one of the most awesome people I have ever seen.

More than I could do.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new...aughter-after-guilty-verdict-thank-nz-support
Click to expand...



Yes. Real dignity, poise and grace.

However it's worth remembering that - though it can often be hard to do so - one must take these sorts of things out of the equation when assessing guilt or non-guilt of the defendant. The dead person's family will (QED) almost always be grief-stricken and highly emotional. And also, in a well-proven psychological process, it's often the case that the dead person's relatives - in seeking not only for answers about the person's death, but also looking for a third party to blame - can become fixated upon the guilt of anyone who ends up being tried in relation to the death.

However, in this case, I do strongly believe that Millane's family's quest for justice and the outcome of the trial were identically aligned. I hope that it will, for them, provide some form of higher understanding and closure, and that it will enable them to get at least closer to carrying on with their lives within a grieving process.
 
LondonJohn said:
*sigh*

Look: it's inescapably (and provably) true that it takes a very significant additional period of time - additional, that is, to the time it takes to choke a person into unconsciousness - to actually choke someone to death. Yes, of course there are variances in the precise time in seconds; but that's only to be expected, since quite a few variables come into play here.

But irrespective of this, it's beyond doubt that once a person has been choked into unconsciousness, it MUST take a minimum of 45 seconds and a maximum of as much as 3 minutes of additional choking to actually cause death.

And this means that the defendant convicted man MUST have choked Millane to the point where she became unconscious - limp, unresponsive, uncommunicative, eyes closed - but then continued choking her for something between 45 seconds and 3 minutes further until he caused her death.

That's important. That's not anything like a "rookie mistake". That's not "a sex game gone accidentally wrong". Instead, that can only demonstrate clear intent on the part of the defendant to cause Millane serious injury or death. Otherwise, if he genuinely had been only interested in helping Millane achieve a heightened level of sexual arousal, why wouldn't he have removed his choke grip shortly after he noticed - as he must have noticed - that she'd lost consciousness?

That's murder.
Click to expand...

Now that you feel your are on point, why was there bruising (internal) on only 1 side of the neck?
Your picking your evidence because you had decided he was guilty on the time of pressure - something the Jury agreed with in a similarly random way as you.
The evidence you are avoiding is the instantaneous unconsciousness that can occur from pressure applied to the neck. And you, like me have no idea, of how many times Grace was taken close to unconsciousness or even into unconsciousness. And remembering that the 'exercise' as I understand it, is to have the breath stopped, an expert gave evidence that when breathing resumed it was shallow initially. That could mean that the exercise if repeated too soon might well be fatal.
And you ignore the evidence of the former boyfriend whom said that Grace would tap 3 times when she had enough. Obviously she was tapping because she could not speak due to pressure on her neck. I don't know and neither to you, if after a period of time pressure was applied again as part of their sex play.
Further you overlook the evidence from the sex expert who spoke about the trust developed between partners taking part in such delight.
You overlook the lack of defence injuries, no small thing in this case, also no screams or noise heard in other rooms. As I've written before when the neck is attacked the person being attacked goes for the arms and hands of the attacker.
So besides your reliance on counting, for which there is no record only qualified estimates, nor importantly the of number times unconsciousness or close to unconsciousness was navigated, not even starting points, no reliable barometer of the impact of alcohol in terms of intention of the man found guilty or indeed that of Grace. None of us will ever know - not a good place for a man starting a life sentence to be - guesswork by default.
It has been cleared up today that the Crown have no proof of when the photos were taken BTW.
 
Fixit said:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12287551

Interesting question from the Jury indicating confusion around application of pressure and its timing. All imprecise guesswork - all it ever could be.

'They asked: "Does 'when he applied pressure' refer to when he started to apply pressure at the beginning or can it refer to any time when he applied pressure?"

Justice Moore said: "It is not limited to the beginning. It can be at any time during the application of force leading to death."
Click to expand...

The confusion appears to be related to the judge's instructions, not to the facts of the case. They are simply asking the Judge what he meant by a phrase in his instructions - there doesn't seem to be any other confusion.
 
Matthew Best said:
The confusion appears to be related to the judge's instructions, not to the facts of the case. They are simply asking the Judge what he meant by a phrase in his instructions - there doesn't seem to be any other confusion.
Click to expand...

Yes, but confusion over critical evidence is fatal to a fair trial.
If you can explain the question and the answer I'd be very grateful Mathew because it has me stumped.
 
Azrael 5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Depends on the shower. I have a wet room shower so you could probably sleep on the floor.
 
Vixen said:
Possibly because he is facing other serious charges...??? They don't want to prejudice his trial?
Click to expand...

That's possible. He has an insignificant criminal history without violence. He seems, I say without data, a fantasist with emotional problems surrounding his childhood. He looks to gain approval and status with lies. None of that was something he was judged on.
 
Fixit said:
Yes, but confusion over critical evidence is fatal to a fair trial.
If you can explain the question and the answer I'd be very grateful Mathew because it has me stumped.
Click to expand...

What makes you think it is confusion over critical evidence?

It appears to be confusion over a phrase in the Judge's instructions.
 
Obviously I haven't seen the instructions, but if I had to guess I would say that it seems likely that the Judge gave the jury several questions they had to answer in order to decide guilt or innocence, and one of them was something about whether the perpetrator was reckless or indifferent to the harm he was causing "when he applied pressure" to Millane's neck. The jury wanted to clarify what that phrase meant.

If the judge meant to ask whether he was reckless or indifferent when he started to apply pressure to her neck, then probably the jury would have said "how can we know?" and found him not guilty.

But the judge meant "was he reckless or indifferent at any time while he was applying pressure?", and the jury decided he obviously was otherwise he would have stopped when she became unconscious.

But that's just my reading of the question. What do you think it signified?
 
Fixit said:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12287551

Interesting question from the Jury indicating confusion around application of pressure and its timing. All imprecise guesswork - all it ever could be.

'They asked: "Does 'when he applied pressure' refer to when he started to apply pressure at the beginning or can it refer to any time when he applied pressure?"

Justice Moore said: "It is not limited to the beginning. It can be at any time during the application of force leading to death."

Quite the Walter Mitty, but no apparent violence previously.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12287282
Click to expand...

Hmmm

He left the family home after simmering tensions boiled over about his constant lying and allegations of stealing from various relatives.
Click to expand...

I did spot he rummaged through Grace's bag whilst she went to the Ladies.
 
Fixit said:
That's possible. He has an insignificant criminal history without violence. He seems, I say without data, a fantasist with emotional problems surrounding his childhood. He looks to gain approval and status with lies. None of that was something he was judged on.
Click to expand...

From the NZ Herald article, he does come across as a classic sociopath. Lies, charms, promiscuous, no remorse, manipulative, cunning, expects instant gratification, has no real feelings.
 
Matthew Best said:
Sounds just like Prince Andrew!
Click to expand...
Well...
Cunning applies to neither. In fact they are both extraordinarily naive in their expectations of the scrutiny they garnered. I get no pleasure from the downfall of either man, I think they are badly advised by nature. I do not believe either are wicked, provisionally I see Shakespearean styled tragedy everywhere.
I think we need the transcripts and summings up in their entirety. I was impressed the jury had 3 weeks of transcripts immediately available, for reasons I will discuss later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom