Grace Millane murder - do we believe the accused?

Fixit said:
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.
Click to expand...



You're apparently still not understanding that the defendant convict MUST have carried on choking Millane for many dozens of seconds after she lost consciousness. Otherwise she wouldn't have died. He carried on choking her limp, unresponsive body. For at least 45 seconds more, and probably 2-3 minutes more. Have a think about that.

And what's more, he must - by definition - have known that Millane was at best unconscious when this whole thing finished up (though any reasonable person would also have noticed that she was not breathing). Yet he, by his own lies version of events, claimed that he only "discovered" that she'd died at a later time. Have a think about that as well. Having choked Millane for a very long period of time, he left her lying limp and unresponsive with apparently no concern for her welfare.

But hey-ho: at least I know what I'm talking about.....

Oh and given that the photos were taken on either his phone or his tablet/laptop, how can it be true that it's impossible to know what time they were taken?
 
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...


Uh, what? The jury asked for further clarification on the judge's instructions in relation to relative timings of choking to achieve a) unconsciousness and b) death. What is it that's so difficult to understand.


(And juries all over the world, every day, ask for clarification and/or repetition of some of the evidence during their deliberation. You're chasing down the wrong alley with all this "there was loads of confusion, therefore it should have been an acquittal" approach. You're wrong.)
 
Ah yes - let's add into the mix the fact that he was caught on CCTV rummaging through Millane's bag while she went to the bathroom in one of the bars/restaurants they were in. Definitely not the behaviour of a potential sociopath/psychopath. Not.

It all adds to a picture of the type of person this defendant convict truly was. Oh, let's throw in the fact that he went on a second Tinder date the very night after the death of Millane. And while her body was lying somewhere in his hotel room. That certainly sounds like the actions and behaviour of someone who was sincerely panicking about an "accidental death" and worrying about whether he'd be "wrongly blamed". Not.
 
Apparently the suppression order will remain in place indefinitely until lifted by the court
 
Long story short,

"Rumour" has it, as in he is

He is also facing another rape case.

So the suppression was there to not mix it, basically
 
Matthew Best said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?[/QUOTE]

You could well have it right, I don't know. We need to remember that neither the Judge or Jury in it's entirety may have been able to understand the Jury's question or if it was put as intended by all the Jury members, it's very vague - and that the Judges answer apparently allowed doubt among of 1 or more jurors to be pushed aside, even in such as basic way for one or more jurors to be able to say I 'was right' It sounds as if there was a dominant view within the Jury surrounding the critical issue - that doesn't mean the issue was fully understood. Also if there were further questions arising from the answer there may have been an uncomfortableness in asking further questions.
"It is not limited to the beginning. It can be at any time during the application of force leading to death."
For example how many times were there? Was it after a time where shallow breathing resumed? Was the immediate unconsciousness point known to Grace and did she point out where she liked the pressure to be applied - or was that even thought of.
In the context of the Jury and the Judge all being at the trial when we were not, we can only pick at bones of information yet I still expect a critical question and answer would deal with the central issue of the death in continuity with other evidence and how it might have happened with all the relevant features. I don't know if that happened in this trial I have my doubts. What we do know is that the photos and body move loomed large - I think each part should have been compartmentalized until there was reasonable certainty about the death.
I could say now that Grace was experienced at running red lights, looked for partners that would satisfy that. Whether that is correct or not I think NZ's way of approaching this entire trial may have been more than a little naive. We have no experience such cases and may have been limited in our approach to understanding and separating the issues where required.
 
LondonJohn said:
You're apparently still not understanding that the defendant convict MUST have carried on choking Millane for many dozens of seconds after she lost consciousness. Otherwise she wouldn't have died. He carried on choking her limp, unresponsive body. For at least 45 seconds more, and probably 2-3 minutes more. Have a think about that.

And what's more, he must - by definition - have known that Millane was at best unconscious when this whole thing finished up (though any reasonable person would also have noticed that she was not breathing). Yet he, by his own lies version of events, claimed that he only "discovered" that she'd died at a later time. Have a think about that as well. Having choked Millane for a very long period of time, he left her lying limp and unresponsive with apparently no concern for her welfare.

But hey-ho: at least I know what I'm talking about.....

Oh and given that the photos were taken on either his phone or his tablet/laptop, how can it be true that it's impossible to know what time they were taken?
Click to expand...

Your second question is more guess work. Of course the photos have a time on them, but the death does not. If you know when the TOD was you are the only person in the world with that information.

You avoid answering the question of shallow breathing raised in evidence. Until you've done that the same thing you been saying for a week is pointless. Can you not comprehend that shallow or weakened breathing ceases sooner than strong robust breathing if pressure is re-applied? I'll leave that point until you make the effort to answer it.
 
Fixit said:
Your second question is more guess work. Of course the photos have a time on them, but the death does not. If you know when the TOD was you are the only person in the world with that information.

You avoid answering the question of shallow breathing raised in evidence. Until you've done that the same thing you been saying for a week is pointless. Can you not comprehend that shallow or weakened breathing ceases sooner than strong robust breathing if pressure is re-applied? I'll leave that point until you make the effort to answer it.
Click to expand...

The jury considered all these issues and came to the right decision in my view. One report I read is that it would have taken minutes (up to 10) for Millane to go from unconsciousness to death, not seconds as some here have speculated. The jury delivered its verdict quickly for a case like this, indicating little doubt that it was murder. I can’t see an appeal succeeding.

Vixen speculated earlier that the murderer was Australian, and this has not been contradicted as far as I can tell. No, a New Zealander.
 
Fixit said:
You could well have it right, I don't know. We need to remember that neither the Judge or Jury in it's entirety may have been able to understand the Jury's question
Click to expand...

You think the jury didn't understand its own question? Well, that's certainly a novel defence.

or if it was put as intended by all the Jury members, it's very vague - and that the Judges answer apparently allowed doubt among of 1 or more jurors to be pushed aside, even in such as basic way for one or more jurors to be able to say I 'was right' It sounds as if there was a dominant view within the Jury surrounding the critical issue - that doesn't mean the issue was fully understood.
Click to expand...

This is some impressive straw-clutching.

Also if there were further questions arising from the answer there may have been an uncomfortableness in asking further questions.
Click to expand...

You seem to be very keen on suggesting things for which there is absolutely no evidence. Maybe it's just as well you weren't a juror yourself!

For example how many times were there? Was it after a time where shallow breathing resumed? Was the immediate unconsciousness point known to Grace and did she point out where she liked the pressure to be applied - or was that even thought of.
Click to expand...

What makes you think it wasn't thought of? And if it wasn't brought up, whose fault is that? It can only be the defendant's as he was the only person left alive to explain it. If it's not part of his story, why should the jury, or the judge, be making his defence for him?

In the context of the Jury and the Judge all being at the trial when we were not, we can only pick at bones of information yet I still expect a critical question and answer would deal with the central issue of the death in continuity with other evidence and how it might have happened with all the relevant features.
Click to expand...

That is literally what the trial process is for! It seems to have worked perfectly well on this occasion.
 
LondonJohn said:
Uh, what? The jury asked for further clarification on the judge's instructions in relation to relative timings of choking to achieve a) unconsciousness and b) death. What is it that's so difficult to understand.


(And juries all over the world, every day, ask for clarification and/or repetition of some of the evidence during their deliberation. You're chasing down the wrong alley with all this "there was loads of confusion, therefore it should have been an acquittal" approach. You're wrong.)
Click to expand...

Ok, I see how you get trapped into chasing your tail. I hope you understand this in order that you don't have to repeat yourself, again, I know about the pathologists agreement over 'choking' time as approximate it may be. But what I don't know (perhaps the Jury did and if that is the case my point is lessened) is if there were directions (or even evidence) as the effects of intoxication leading to breathing stopping, the pressure applied (Jury did hear this) to cause immediate unconsciousness, the resumption of breath after choking, the resumption of breath after choking when it is shallow or weakened and how fresh pressure from that might impact fatally.

You see those are all factors of the 'game' that Grace involved in on that night and previously.

So the Jury's question was bare and sharp to the point - but the actual issue of when the pressure was applied that resulted in death is extensive. I now feel the Judge may not have seen that either, but the question bare as it was was answered in the same way. Perhaps Defence counsel were wary of digging deep into choking concerned at how that may have impacted on it's client. Or perhaps they thought the witness who said the pressure was just right (or similar) would have struck home to the Jury (you deliberately don't mention that). In retrospect the Defence might consider it should have brought to Court witnesses experienced in 'choking' - veterans if you like. I know there was an attempt to bring friends of Grace to testify but they declined.

Earlier you carefully used the word provisionally now you appear to be bragging despite that you 'provisionally' don't know the answers to the questions I've asked you and simply return to choking time. Don't be confused and think that I believe the man to innocent - as I've written before I don't know and I'm not sure how a Jury could know.

The fact that purse is mentioned as supporting guilt, weakens surety.
 
Mathew Quote:
For example how many times were there? Was it after a time where shallow breathing resumed? Was the immediate unconsciousness point known to Grace and did she point out where she liked the pressure to be applied - or was that even thought of.

What makes you think it wasn't thought of? And if it wasn't brought up, whose fault is that? It can only be the defendant's as he was the only person left alive to explain it. If it's not part of his story, why should the jury, or the judge, be making his defence for him?

Firstly, on any Jury in NZ there may 2 to 3 ethnic backgrounds, English may not always be the first language. There are dominant Jurors - that would be circumvented if the question and answer were clearer. Some of our cultures would be horrified at the type of sex involved here. There might not be no way around it but that is the way it is.

To your answer above. A defendant can't be blamed for a trial not inquiring further into those questions but they were brought up, if not all fully investigated - which is the whole point about both the question and its answer. The Judge was asked the question about the timing of the pressure, the Jury were earlier told of the pressure which rendered instant unconsciousness. It is the single most important evidence in the trial:
Did Grace consent to having pressure applied to her neck?
It appears she did, it was a practice of hers and there were no injuries indicating she fought against the pressure.
Does it matter when the pressure was applied?
Yes it does and how often.
Does it matter how many times it was applied, and perhaps asked to be applied again. Or just applied again because that is how any request for pressure unfolded. Or because of drunkenness or heightened pleasure.
Yes it does to culpability.
Is there a point of shallow breathing where repeated pressure might more quickly cause death?
I think so, but would like that clarified.

There are people who know the answers to these general questions that had they been heard may have prevented guess work.There are people with this experience that may have assisted. Unfortunately we don't know all the details of the ex boyfriends evidence but it did with certainty show choking was something that Grace liked. She was part of 2 sites dedicated to this practice, there was talk about signals to stop, trust in a partner and so on. Did we get near an answer if the defendant just happened to be looking for somebody to strangle to death and found Grace.

From there the doubts go on and on, no plan in place postmortem re the body, another date organised.

Anyway this world of 'pressure to the neck' will start revealing information which will certainly surprise some of us and give more clarity perhaps to Grace's death.
 
In closing for now.
I remain interested in why there was bruising to only 1 side of the neck.
 
I'm still interested in how long it would take to strangle someone if you were trying. It's the cross-over with the somewhat similar Gilroy case, in that he strangled his ex-lover without pre-meditation and probably without intent to kill (because at the time he had no means of disposing of the body), and then went on to cover up the killing by concealing the body (successfully in his case).

The situation was different in that there was no sex involved. They were presumably having a row and he lost control and went for her and throttled her. The time he was out of sight was limited and so how long would the actual strangulation have taken? Does this case illuminate that? His victim wasn't drunk.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom