Grace Millane murder - do we believe the accused?

Matthew Best said:
And this helps the murderer how? It seems to be saying he could have been strangling her for as little as 2 minutes. 2 minutes seems plenty long enough for a competent jury to decide he intended to serious harm to her.
Click to expand...



Oh and one more observation on this:

A critical factor in the assessment of intent (i.e. intent to seriously injure or kill) in this case is not merely the time needed for continuous compression of the carotid artery/arteries to cause death*, but - crucially - the amount of time that must have taken place between the man choking Millane into unconsciousness and him choking her to death.

Why? Because the man was claiming that this was purely an accident that happened during the commission of an erotic-asphyxiation sex game. Yet if it really had been nothing more than this, then IMO it's impossible to see how/why the man would have continued applying his choke hold to Millane's neck for such a considerable period of time after she fell unconscious. After all, in this sort of sex game, it's wholly obvious that as soon as the "chokee" falls unconscious, the choking has already gone too far. And at that point, or soon thereafter, the one doing the choking would release his/her choke hold to allow the person to regain consciousness.

What the one doing the choking would NOT do (IMO) is carry on choking a person who was patently limp, unresponsive, uncommunicative with their eyes closed, for an additional time period of something between 45 seconds and up to 3-4 minutes further. How could such an action possibly be compatible with a claim to be doing nothing more than performing erotic-asphyxiation choking on the person? And likewise, how could such an action be compatible with anything other than intent to seriously injure or kill the person? And if the latter (which I believe must be the case here), and if the person ends up dying at the hand of the choker, then the choker has committed murder.


* Which, as you point out, even this article puts at 2-4 minutes, in (ironically) a complete refutation of the very thing (i.e. instantaneous death) that Fixit was trying to support.....
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh and one more observation on this:

A critical factor in the assessment of intent (i.e. intent to seriously injure or kill) in this case is not merely the time needed for continuous compression of the carotid artery/arteries to cause death*, but - crucially - the amount of time that must have taken place between the man choking Millane into unconsciousness and him choking her to death.

Why? Because the man was claiming that this was purely an accident that happened during the commission of an erotic-asphyxiation sex game. Yet if it really had been nothing more than this, then IMO it's impossible to see how/why the man would have continued applying his choke hold to Millane's neck for such a considerable period of time after she fell unconscious. After all, in this sort of sex game, it's wholly obvious that as soon as the "chokee" falls unconscious, the choking has already gone too far. And at that point, or soon thereafter, the one doing the choking would release his/her choke hold to allow the person to regain consciousness.

What the one doing the choking would NOT do (IMO) is carry on choking a person who was patently limp, unresponsive, uncommunicative with their eyes closed, for an additional time period of something between 45 seconds and up to 3-4 minutes further. How could such an action possibly be compatible with a claim to be doing nothing more than performing erotic-asphyxiation choking on the person? And likewise, how could such an action be compatible with anything other than intent to seriously injure or kill the person? And if the latter (which I believe must be the case here), and if the person ends up dying at the hand of the choker, then the choker has committed murder.


* Which, as you point out, even this article puts at 2-4 minutes, in (ironically) a complete refutation of the very thing (i.e. instantaneous death) that Fixit was trying to support.....
Click to expand...
What troubles me in this case is the clear lack of motive. I am fully aware the crown has vested itself with authority to deem motive irrelevant, but here we have several factors lining up that deny any motive.
1. Grace Millane's sexual history, and the justice minister has just declared this admissibility is not subject to any law change after the case.
2. The text she naively sent to a friend saying how well the date was going.
3. The large quantity of alcohol both consumed on empty stomachs.

Somehow the on thread verdict has become that we have a safe verdict of murder, yet the test is beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not close. IMO.

It is possible he knew she was dead before allegedly sleeping in the shower. It is also possible he photographed the deceased having decided he was going to move and conceal the body, as a precaution for a possible defence. One fortuitous matter is leading police to the body while it had a satisfactory state of preservation to allow an autopsy that lined up exactly with his statements in the arresting interview. He had a legitimate defence that nevertheless has the baying pack congratulating the jury on a swift verdict.

The only motive that makes plausible sense is that he got carried away with a dangerous act, but this is an assumption not legally allowed.

In summing up, Moore j said if the jury believes she consented to pressure on the neck they must acquit. What happened to that?
 
Samson said:
What troubles me in this case is the clear lack of motive. I am fully aware the crown has vested itself with authority to deem motive irrelevant, but here we have several factors lining up that deny any motive.
1. Grace Millane's sexual history, and the justice minister has just declared this admissibility is not subject to any law change after the case.
2. The text she naively sent to a friend saying how well the date was going.
3. The large quantity of alcohol both consumed on empty stomachs.

Somehow the on thread verdict has become that we have a safe verdict of murder, yet the test is beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not close. IMO.

It is possible he knew she was dead before allegedly sleeping in the shower. It is also possible he photographed the deceased having decided he was going to move and conceal the body, as a precaution for a possible defence. One fortuitous matter is leading police to the body while it had a satisfactory state of preservation to allow an autopsy that lined up exactly with his statements in the arresting interview. He had a legitimate defence that nevertheless has the baying pack congratulating the jury on a swift verdict.

The only motive that makes plausible sense is that he got carried away with a dangerous act, but this is an assumption not legally allowed.

In summing up, Moore j said if the jury believes she consented to pressure on the neck they must acquit. What happened to that?
Click to expand...



You write that "the crown has vested itself with authority to deem motive irrelevant" - which seems to suggest you're arguing that the Crown is somehow pulling rank or skewing things unfairly in its own favour.

But there are extremely sound reasons why motive is not a necessary component of a guilty verdict. Sometimes the motive is pretty clear, and it does indeed feed into the narrative (for example: man comes home and finds his wife in bed with the gardener; man shoots garderner dead). But in many instances - including this case - it's near-impossible to search for a motive, because the motive is most likely locked within the deep psyche of the perpetrator.

Several pages ago in this thread, I did suggest a potential motive and driver for this man to have committed murder: I suggested that he may have become so aroused (not just sexually) by feelings of power and control once he was choking Millane, that some sort of "inner beast" took over and he felt compelled to continue choking her until all life had left her body.

Now, that may be wholly or partially accurate, or it may be entirely inaccurate. And it's nothing more than a hypothesis based on a fair (but not expert) understanding of human psychology. But I would have been totally shocked if this or any other hypothesis about motive had ever been raised in this trial. All that the crown had to prove was that the defendant must have had the intent to seriously injure or kill Millane. To that end, it's irrelevant to talk of perceived motive (or perceived lack of motive).

We will probably never know quite why this man did what he did. And it's actually far from unlikely that the man himself doesn't really know why he did what he did. But all that's important from a judicial/legal point of view is that it is proven BARD that he DID do what he did, and that he intended to do so.
 
Samson said:
In summing up, Moore j said if the jury believes she consented to pressure on the neck they must acquit. What happened to that?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Did that actually happen? If so, it's the first I've heard of it, and it sounds extremely unlikely. Please provide the full quote from the judge.
 
Matthew Best said:
I don't know. Did that actually happen? If so, it's the first I've heard of it, and it sounds extremely unlikely. Please provide the full quote from the judge.
Click to expand...



That sounds wildly improbable. For the simple reason that yes, she may have consented to pressure on the neck within the confines of erotic asphyxiation (which is to say she consented to being choked up to the point where she passed out, and by extension would have implicitly consented to being rendered unconscious if things went a bit too far, with the obvious proviso that he would then release his choke hold in order for her to regain consciousness).....

.....but that was as far as her consent (and implicit consent) went. It would be inconceivable - and actually contrary to laws around consent - that she would have "consented" to having the choke hold continued long after she lost consciousness, to the point where she died.

There are pretty clear and obvious boundaries for consent when it comes to this sort of activity. And it's perfectly feasible (and possible in this case, assuming that Millane consented to anything at all) for someone to consent to being taken to that boundary - unconsciousness - but no further.

I'll be absolutely astonished if the trial judge gave that instruction to the jurors in this case.
 
That summing up is a bit confused to my eyes, and the judge seems to be saying conflicting things, in that he also says this:

"Consent can be revoked at any time … by words and actions," he said.

"And if someone goes beyond what they consented to - they no longer consent."

He said alcohol was an issue in the realm of consent relating to Millane's death.

"A person does not consent if they were so drunk that they cannot and do not consent," he said.

"Finally ... and significantly, no person can give consent if they are unconscious, for any reason, whatsoever."

He said that meant while Millane was unconscious she was no longer giving consent to anything she had allowed or agreed for the accused to do.
 
Then he also says this:

If they found him guilty of murder, they were to go no further.

"Only if you do not, do you go on to consider manslaughter, the culpable homicide," he explained.

Only then would the issue of consent come in.

"Consent is not a defence to murder," said the judge.
 
And remember, this source is actually nothing more a real-time stream of newspaper reporting. The reporter was sitting in the courtroom, relaying proceedings as they happened. There's clearly room for a certain amout of error in this sort of process,

What this source is NOT is a reliable transcript. And I think that's a very important thing to consider. I'd like to see primary-source transcripts of the judge's instructions. As you say, Matthew, the way the judge's words have been reported in this news article appears contradictory and confusing.
 
And by the way, further down that livestream newspaper report (which equates to an earlier point in the judge's instructions), the following instructions from the judge are reported:

He (Justice Moore) said the concept of motive was important - and jurors must not confuse it with intention.

"Motive is the reason or emotion that may have prompted a particular act … the Crown doesn't have to prove motive.

"Intention is what result the person intended to bring about - not why they intended to do it."

Justice Moore then spent time explaining the intricacies of murderous intent as described by the Crimes Act.

He said the intentional killing of another person, by law, was murder.

Justice Moore said murderous intent was when a defendant means to cause bodily injury that is known to be likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not.

He said the jury had to be 100 per cent sure that the accused had murderous intent when he put his hands on Millane's neck.

"Are you sure that when he applied pressure to Miss Millane's neck … did he intend to cause injury?" he posed.

"If you answer is yes, then you would find [the accused] guilty of murder."

He said if the jury did not believe he intended to cause harm to Millane, he was not guilty of the charge of murder.

Again, they had to be sure beyond reasonable doubt.

"Are you sure when he applied pressure to Miss Millane's neck [he] ran the risk of Miss Millane dying … he nevertheless continued.

"If yes, then [the accused] is guilty of murder.

"In other words [he] must have appreciated Miss Millane's death was a likely consequence … but was willing to run that risk."
 
LondonJohn said:
And remember, this source is actually nothing more a real-time stream of newspaper reporting. The reporter was sitting in the courtroom, relaying proceedings as they happened. There's clearly room for a certain amout of error in this sort of process,

What this source is NOT is a reliable transcript. And I think that's a very important thing to consider. I'd like to see primary-source transcripts of the judge's instructions. As you say, Matthew, the way the judge's words have been reported in this news article appears contradictory and confusing.
Click to expand...
Yes to all that, and I rang the high court. Transcripts are not automatically available, a reason must be given. I suspect the summings up are more likely to be procurable.

The email address for inquiry is

aucklandhc@justice.govt.nz
 
LondonJohn said:
I'm finding it really strange how Fixit keeps posting new links claiming it proves his point, when it actually (if anything) does the complete opposite.

I hesitate to repeat wearily: there is simply no reliable medical evidence showing that instantaneous (or even near-instantaneous) death from carotid sinus stimulation can even occur.


(Oh and once again, that post of Fixit's shows him/her to be freely mixing-and-matching "death from carotid artery compression" and "death from carotid sinus stimulation". By this point, I actually don't think he understands the difference between the two)


ETA: And in another "you couldn't make it up" moment.... I've just realised that the passage quoted by Fixit was from a blog aimed at crime fiction writers!! The words "clutching at straws to try to shore up a position" comes strangely to mind
Click to expand...

Just to help from earlier on. And sorry if you aren't agile enough to move from instant death from manual carotid pressure, a strike, a neck lock,
or collapse from pressure to the carotid when shaving. Most people would see the link to the overall sensitivity of the carotid, but not you obviously.

Bernard Knight: Lawyers Guide to Forensic Medicine pg 214

'Carotid Sinus'

'This is a common source of death in pressure on the neck, especially in manual strangulation, and can occur INSTANTLY when the neck is gripped.'


'In martial arts and self defense
Stimulation of the carotid sinus via a slap or a strike, to induce (usually temporary, but sometimes lethal) loss of consciousness is a theatrical self-defense technique, and is often taught in martial arts such as karate."
My experience with that was a single hand grip to both sides of the carotid sinus

Even in shaving for the elderly can cause a collapse:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537223/

"This sudden decrease in blood pressure can cause syncope, which often presents in patients who have a history of syncope while shaving or buttoning their shirts, activities which cause increased pressure on the carotid artery."

Like the above the 1933 paper on carotid compression has also been placed here earlier where neck holds were banned for law enforcement officials after instant death experiences in subduing suspects.

Don't hesitate to repeat anything 'wearily' because it's clear you can't help yourself and that it is something you love to do.

Just a reminder which I'm sure you don't want. Get anywhere with the vulnerability of a person shallow breathing having pressure applied to their necks? Or indeed why there was internal bruising only on side of Grace's neck. I won't bother you with a third one as you've been stuck on these 2 for days.

No need to write another book, yes or no will do.:)
 
LondonJohn said:
And remember, this source is actually nothing more a real-time stream of newspaper reporting. The reporter was sitting in the courtroom, relaying proceedings as they happened. There's clearly room for a certain amout of error in this sort of process,

What this source is NOT is a reliable transcript. And I think that's a very important thing to consider. I'd like to see primary-source transcripts of the judge's instructions. As you say, Matthew, the way the judge's words have been reported in this news article appears contradictory and confusing.
Click to expand...

Old saying comes to mind - 'more reverse gears than an Italian tank.' Well done.
 
This case is sure to travel a scenic route. There is a lot to consider in the summing up, it is clearly deeply flawed. There are circular arguments to make one giddy.
 
Fixit said:
Just to help from earlier on. And sorry if you aren't agile enough to move from instant death from manual carotid pressure, a strike, a neck lock,
or collapse from pressure to the carotid when shaving. Most people would see the link to the overall sensitivity of the carotid, but not you obviously.
Click to expand...


Firstly, the very fact that you keep referring here to "the carotid" just goes to show that you still don't know/understand the difference between the carotid artery and the carotid sinus. They are different parts of the anatomy. Did you not know that?

Secondly, you're still playing fast and loose with trying to claim that temporary loss of consciousness (i.e. fainting) from carotid sinus stimulation is somehow the same as instantaneous death from carotid sinus stimulation. Why are you continuing to do this? Is it a conscious attempt to deceive?



Bernard Knight: Lawyers Guide to Forensic Medicine pg 214

'Carotid Sinus'

'This is a common source of death in pressure on the neck, especially in manual strangulation, and can occur INSTANTLY when the neck is gripped.'


'In martial arts and self defense
Stimulation of the carotid sinus via a slap or a strike, to induce (usually temporary, but sometimes lethal) loss of consciousness is a theatrical self-defense technique, and is often taught in martial arts such as karate."
My experience with that was a single hand grip to both sides of the carotid sinus
Click to expand...



Link please. Or it didn't happen.




Even in shaving for the elderly can cause a collapse:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537223/

"This sudden decrease in blood pressure can cause syncope, which often presents in patients who have a history of syncope while shaving or buttoning their shirts, activities which cause increased pressure on the carotid artery."
Click to expand...



Do you even know what syncope is? It seems likely that you don't (or that you do, but that you're attempting a willful deception. Because "syncope" does not mean "instantaneous death".



Like the above the 1933 paper on carotid compression has also been placed here earlier where neck holds were banned for law enforcement officials after instant death experiences in subduing suspects.

Don't hesitate to repeat anything 'wearily' because it's clear you can't help yourself and that it is something you love to do.
Click to expand...



What?




Just a reminder which I'm sure you don't want. Get anywhere with the vulnerability of a person shallow breathing having pressure applied to their necks? Or indeed why there was internal bruising only on side of Grace's neck. I won't bother you with a third one as you've been stuck on these 2 for days.

No need to write another book, yes or no will do.:)
Click to expand...



"Shallow breathing" has nothing whatsoever to do with the mechanisms of death from compression of the carotid artery/arteries. If you don't know that, I suggest more/better research.

And I've addressed this "bruising on one side" thing twice now. Go back and read my posts properly, cos I sure can't be bothered to write it out again.
 
Samson said:
This case is sure to travel a scenic route. There is a lot to consider in the summing up, it is clearly deeply flawed. There are circular arguments to make one giddy.
Click to expand...



But remember that this opinion is purely based on a real-time courtroom report of the judge's instructions. Not the verbatim instructions themselves. So I'd hold back until/unless a complete and accurate version is produced.

And in any case, my opinion is that this is a safe conviction based on the totality of the evidence.

A further thing to remember is that even if the judge's words were reported accurately, this would only tend to work in favour of the man's defence. In post-conviction appeals, the only real grounds for appeal in this area are where the judge has given improper jury instructions in a manner which favours the prosecution......
 
LondonJohn said:
But remember that this opinion is purely based on a real-time courtroom report of the judge's instructions. Not the verbatim instructions themselves. So I'd hold back until/unless a complete and accurate version is produced.

And in any case, my opinion is that this is a safe conviction based on the totality of the evidence.

A further thing to remember is that even if the judge's words were reported accurately, this would only tend to work in favour of the man's defence. In post-conviction appeals, the only real grounds for appeal in this area are where the judge has given improper jury instructions in a manner which favours the prosecution......
Click to expand...

We engage here not just to check whether verdicts are legally safe, but whether they are factually safe.
My wish is that there is no sniping on thread while we consider this. When a judge's summing up is contradictory at the profoundest level all matters are germane.
 
Samson said:
We engage here not just to check whether verdicts are legally safe, but whether they are factually safe.
My wish is that there is no sniping on thread while we consider this. When a judge's summing up is contradictory at the profoundest level all matters are germane.
Click to expand...



1) But a judge's summing up is everything to do with judicial/legal considerattions rather than factual considerations.

2) In your last sentence, I'd say it should read "if" rather than "when".

3) I believe that factually this man's conviction is safe.
 
LondonJohn said:
1) But a judge's summing up is everything to do with judicial/legal considerattions rather than factual considerations.

2) In your last sentence, I'd say it should read "if" rather than "when".

3) I believe that factually this man's conviction is safe.
Click to expand...

More for a philosophy thread, but I think "believe" is a dangerous word with bad outcomes. The rest I am happy to come back to.
 
You know, I don't care. If this is, somehow, a miscarriage of justice, someone else can go to bat for the guy. I'm all out of sympathy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom