Grace Millane murder - do we believe the accused?

[Samson]

I loved the part in Catch 22 when a character, might have been major major, drew a list where he headed with Black eyes and Feathers in my cap.

The accused here actually had some authentic feathers in his cap, but I am getting from local and international reaction it is going to be more peaceful for those who wish to correct the record to engage elsewhere.
Alarming, and I am surprised that the murder conviction is so casually embraced on this forum.

 

[Rolfe]

Grace Millane is dead. He killed her. Afterwards he tried to conceal her body.

Thanks, but I'll go with the jury on this one.

 

[lionking]

I loved the part in Catch 22 when a character, might have been major major, drew a list where he headed with Black eyes and Feathers in my cap.

The accused here actually had some authentic feathers in his cap, but I am getting from local and international reaction it is going to be more peaceful for those who wish to correct the record to engage elsewhere.
Alarming, and I am surprised that the murder conviction is so casually embraced on this forum.

I am surprised that you are so often wrong in your support for clearly correct judicial decision, Pistorius being one.

Actually, I’m not surprised. You are usually wrong.

 

[Disbelief]

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.

And yet you can not show in an MMA fight, BJJ fight or any other grappling event where instantaneous death has occurred. You realize that chokeholds like the rear naked, the guillotine and the Darce target the blood flow to the brain by restricting the carotid arteries. According to you, they should be outlawed since instantaneous death can occur, or you should have examples of this happening to support your claim.

As to your claim that instant death is the reason that law enforcement banned chokes, I find nothing to support this. What I've found, is that they have been banned because too many officers did not know proper technique and did not restrict the carotids - which would have led to the person passing out. What happened, was that the officers restricted airflow, which ultimately led to death.

When pressure on the carotids is released, the flow of oxygenated blood resumes immediately and consciousness slowly returns. In contrast, if the airway rather than the carotid arteries is blocked, the subject cannot breathe, but his brain is still perfused with blood and he will remain conscious and may continue to struggle for a minute or more; he will lose consciousness only when the oxygen in the circulating blood is consumed and he collapses from hypoxia. Even if the hold is released at this point, the blood circulating through the brain contains no oxygen, and consequently the subject may not regain consciousness or resume spontaneous breathing. Possibly the most important element of training for the use of chokeholds in law enforcement is the understanding that the subject should always be able to breathe freely.

(Bolding mine)

 

[Rolfe]

That's really interesting, thanks.

(I'm mainly still trying to figure out how long it would have taken Dacid Gilroy to strangle Suzanne Pilley, but there is an awful lot of useful background information in this thread.)

 

[LondonJohn]

And yet you can not show in an MMA fight, BJJ fight or any other grappling event where instantaneous death has occurred. You realize that chokeholds like the rear naked, the guillotine and the Darce target the blood flow to the brain by restricting the carotid arteries. According to you, they should be outlawed since instantaneous death can occur, or you should have examples of this happening to support your claim.

Well I don't know about you, but I'm definitely about to start a vociferous campaign to get all choke holds in MMA contests banned immediately: for heaven's sake, there's reliable medical evidence that a fighter could die instantaneously from such a choke hold being applied!!!

(Not)

As to your claim that instant death is the reason that law enforcement banned chokes, I find nothing to support this. What I've found, is that they have been banned because too many officers did not know proper technique and did not restrict the carotids - which would have led to the person passing out. What happened, was that the officers restricted airflow, which ultimately led to death.

Yes. Unfortunately what's been happening here is that Fixit has been inventing his own version in order to support his a priori beliefs. People have died in police restraint holds to the neck because they've been choked - and all too often suffocated, as you point out - for several minutes. That's plenty long enough to cause death. And some police officers who have caused deaths in this manner have been successfully prosecuted for murder.

 

[LondonJohn]

I loved the part in Catch 22 when a character, might have been major major, drew a list where he headed with Black eyes and Feathers in my cap.

The accused here actually had some authentic feathers in his cap, but I am getting from local and international reaction it is going to be more peaceful for those who wish to correct the record to engage elsewhere.
Alarming, and I am surprised that the murder conviction is so casually embraced on this forum.

Firstly, what do you mean by "correct the record" here?

And secondly, I'm interested in your use of the terminology "so casually embraced on this forum". I'm not sure if you realise the purpose of debate, argumentation and opinion-forming. To my eyes, more-or-less everyone within this thread (and definitely I myself) who is arguing that this man has safely been found guilty has come to that conclusion after a rational and objective analysis of the evidence. Have you been missing all of that analysis? You're writing here as if people are either a) putting 2 and 2 together to make 5, or b) coming to a conclusion of guilt based on irrational methods such as jaundice, bias or hatred of all alleged violence by men against women.

As I mentioned above: speaking for myself (and, I believe, many others here), I conclude that this man a) factually did intentionally seriously harm Millane and in the process caused her death (i.e. murder), and b) was therefore correctly and safely convicted in court of her murder. But I came to that conclusion based upon what I judge to be a rational, objective and scientific analysis of the pertinent evidence in this case. I have no innate "desire" to have come to this conclusion, and nor have I come to this conclusion on a whim (or "casually"). And if you think that I or many others in this thread have "casually embraced" a conclusion of murder, then I'd suggest that you've been reading a different thread than this one.......

 

[Rolfe]

Earlier in the thread we had the actual New Zealand statute defining the crime of murder quoted.

yup, here's the actual law...

Murder defined
Culpable homicide is murder in each of the following cases:
(a) if the offender means to cause the death of the person killed:
(b) if the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily injury that is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not:(c) if the offender means to cause death, or, being so reckless as aforesaid, means to cause such bodily injury as aforesaid to one person, and by accident or mistake kills another person, though he or she does not mean to hurt the person killed:
(d) if the offender for any unlawful object does an act that he or she knows to be likely to cause death, and thereby kills any person, though he or she may have desired that his or her object should be effected without hurting any one.

b) is a pretty good case in this one as causing injury through strangulation is likely to cause death and is reckless.

As we discussed the details of this case we repeatedly came back to the observation that the guy was vulnerable under point (b). Someone (Matthew Best?), on reading that, responded with "stick a fork in him, he's done."

We continued to debate whether the guy's actions as described really did fall under that heading, but it's difficult to sustain a position that they definitely didn't. Restricting someone's airway is definitely a bodily injury likely to cause death, and any adult should know that. So we're only talking about whether there was recklessness.

On this point I am content to defer to the decision of the jury. There was blood pouring from her nose. She clearly didn't speak or move after he stopped constricting her breathing. But he claimed not to have realised she was dead, and to have gone into the shower. Somehow he formed the impression that she had got up and left the flat.

That to me seems to point damningly towards recklessness. He had so little care for her wellbeing that he didn't even look at her long enough to realise she was unresponsive, or to notice the blood pouring from her nose. If you're not being reckless you look at your partner and have a care to see that she is OK. He didn't do that, which is consistent with recklessness. This seems to me to be the line the jury took and I'm absolutely OK with it. Not casual at all.

If the jury had taken a different line I would have been interested to understand that too. I struggle to see how they could get past the uncaring move to the shower without noticing that he'd killed his date and not see it as evidence of recklessness. But in the event they seem to have concluded that it was.

This isn't some glaring factual error like Meredith Kercher's stomach contents indicating she was dead a couple of hours before the police theory said she was, or the Lockerbie suitcase bomb being on the bottom layer of luggage rather than the second one, or the conversation Andrina Bryson says she saw being invisible to her if she was driving north, therefore she must have been driving south when she saw it, therefore it must have been an hour later than the time the police thought it was. These things are factual, capable of being appreciated by commentators not in court, and the court's decision challenged when they don't seem to have been understood.

This is a subjective issue. We know what happened, to a reasonable degree of detail. It boils down to whether or not the accused was reckless. There is reasonable empirical evidence to support the conclusion that he was. The jury actually saw him and were in a position to assess his attitude and degree of care better than we can.

Yes vengeful harpy, yes body of work, but when you come down to it this was a perfectly rational verdict on the evidence presented. The jury believed beyond reasonable doubt that he had been reckless. I see no reason to disagree with them.

 

[Fixit]

And yet you can not show in an MMA fight, BJJ fight or any other grappling event where instantaneous death has occurred. You realize that chokeholds like the rear naked, the guillotine and the Darce target the blood flow to the brain by restricting the carotid arteries. According to you, they should be outlawed since instantaneous death can occur, or you should have examples of this happening to support your claim.

As to your claim that instant death is the reason that law enforcement banned chokes, I find nothing to support this. What I've found, is that they have been banned because too many officers did not know proper technique and did not restrict the carotids - which would have led to the person passing out. What happened, was that the officers restricted airflow, which ultimately led to death.

(Bolding mine)

No I can't show anything from a fight because around a decade ago when I saw the video of a Russian fighter choking his opponent to death I didn't save it. If you don't see the significance in the difference of the muscularity of the neck of a trained fighter to that of a young woman who it is suggested asked to have her neck pressed your engaging without thinking. There are details of that on line. I'm not trying to convince you of anything and I have already put up the 1933 paper in which when analysed in more modern times - re choke holds, is found to still stand up. Elsewhere in America there are civil suits alleging death followed choke holds. Likewise I didn't save them and can't be bothered looking for them again. But I may despite Grace's death was an MMA fight.

 

[Fixit]

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?







Link please. Or it didn't happen.








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".







What?








"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.

You didn't address the bruising you gave a list of 6 scenarios - guesswork.

What I know about shallow breathing is that it was mentioned trial by the pathologist in terms of resumption of breath. So take that up with the pathologist. In fact I'm sure you could give him a lecture about it, the same one many times over. If you can show that interruption of blood and oxygen flow caused by carotid pressure resulting in shallow breathing, then being reapplied is not harmful a second or third or more times and would not result in death or serious brain or heart damage that would be much appreciated. But by all means keep going around the same circle.

One of many definitions of synope: "Jan 20, 2003 - Syncope, or fainting, is a sudden, temporary loss of consciousness. ... Syncope is caused by a temporary decrease in the flow of blood to the brain. ... The doctor may recommend certain diagnostic tests to determine the cause of your fainting episodes."
Apparently the part 'enjoyed' in 'breath play' for the pleasure which in fact is the body's resistance to unconsciousness.

Temporary loss of consciousness which can happen by either 'pressure' or 'massage' of the carotid. Loss of consciousness may not be temporary in every case as Knight says, as the 1933 paper says and other links placed here.

You deliberately overlook what Knight says and hen pick over words, repeating your points in a nonsensical way before dancing back to how the offender acted after Grace's death. I could equally point out that while there is no doubt the offender is a proper arse, that Grace enjoyed 'breath play' and was therefore more likely to be engaged in it than somebody who had not done it before and texted her friend that she and the man 'had clicked.'

 

[Fixit]

Earlier in the thread we had the actual New Zealand statute defining the crime of murder quoted.




As we discussed the details of this case we repeatedly came back to the observation that the guy was vulnerable under point (b). Someone (Matthew Best?), on reading that, responded with "stick a fork in him, he's done."

We continued to debate whether the guy's actions as described really did fall under that heading, but it's difficult to sustain a position that they definitely didn't. Restricting someone's airway is definitely a bodily injury likely to cause death, and any adult should know that. So we're only talking about whether there was recklessness.

On this point I am content to defer to the decision of the jury. There was blood pouring from her nose. She clearly didn't speak or move after he stopped constricting her breathing. But he claimed not to have realised she was dead, and to have gone into the shower. Somehow he formed the impression that she had got up and left the flat.

That to me seems to point damningly towards recklessness. He had so little care for her wellbeing that he didn't even look at her long enough to realise she was unresponsive, or to notice the blood pouring from her nose. If you're not being reckless you look at your partner and have a care to see that she is OK. He didn't do that, which is consistent with recklessness. This seems to me to be the line the jury took and I'm absolutely OK with it. Not casual at all.

If the jury had taken a different line I would have been interested to understand that too. I struggle to see how they could get past the uncaring move to the shower without noticing that he'd killed his date and not see it as evidence of recklessness. But in the event they seem to have concluded that it was.

This isn't some glaring factual error like Meredith Kercher's stomach contents indicating she was dead a couple of hours before the police theory said she was, or the Lockerbie suitcase bomb being on the bottom layer of luggage rather than the second one, or the conversation Andrina Bryson says she saw being invisible to her if she was driving north, therefore she must have been driving south when she saw it, therefore it must have been an hour later than the time the police thought it was. These things are factual, capable of being appreciated by commentators not in court, and the court's decision challenged when they don't seem to have been understood.

This is a subjective issue. We know what happened, to a reasonable degree of detail. It boils down to whether or not the accused was reckless. There is reasonable empirical evidence to support the conclusion that he was. The jury actually saw him and were in a position to assess his attitude and degree of care better than we can.

Yes vengeful harpy, yes body of work, but when you come down to it this was a perfectly rational verdict on the evidence presented. The jury believed beyond reasonable doubt that he had been reckless. I see no reason to disagree with them.

This is all good. But I think the evidence (according to his interview) was that he noticed the blood after coming from the shower.
I haven't yet found anything in any detail about blood from the nose from victims of strangulation?
Was there any advantage for him in mentioning the blood and would have been known about if he had not?
I have however read about an unconscious body being in a position where breathing may be inhibited. These details may have been covered at trial and would quite likely make a difference in understanding the differences between the Crown and Defence cases.

 

[Fixit]

Firstly, what do you mean by "correct the record" here?

And secondly, I'm interested in your use of the terminology "so casually embraced on this forum". I'm not sure if you realise the purpose of debate, argumentation and opinion-forming. To my eyes, more-or-less everyone within this thread (and definitely I myself) who is arguing that this man has safely been found guilty has come to that conclusion after a rational and objective analysis of the evidence. Have you been missing all of that analysis? You're writing here as if people are either a) putting 2 and 2 together to make 5, or b) coming to a conclusion of guilt based on irrational methods such as jaundice, bias or hatred of all alleged violence by men against women.

As I mentioned above: speaking for myself (and, I believe, many others here), I conclude that this man a) factually did intentionally seriously harm Millane and in the process caused her death (i.e. murder), and b) was therefore correctly and safely convicted in court of her murder. But I came to that conclusion based upon what I judge to be a rational, objective and scientific analysis of the pertinent evidence in this case. I have no innate "desire" to have come to this conclusion, and nor have I come to this conclusion on a whim (or "casually"). And if you think that I or many others in this thread have "casually embraced" a conclusion of murder, then I'd suggest that you've been reading a different thread than this one.......

Feel free to generously congratulate yourself.

 

[Disbelief]

No I can't show anything from a fight because around a decade ago when I saw the video of a Russian fighter choking his opponent to death I didn't save it.

Of course you didn't. Looking up the history, it appears that zero MMA deaths have been attributed to choking with the majority due to strikes. A few have been kidney failure, probably from dehydration due to weight cutting.

If you don't see the significance in the difference of the muscularity of the neck of a trained fighter to that of a young woman who it is suggested asked to have her neck pressed your engaging without thinking. There are details of that on line.

That has nothing to due with the carotid and the claim of instantaneous death. You would expect to hear about it in training, especially with those just starting out.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything and I have already put up the 1933 paper in which when analysed in more modern times - re choke holds, is found to still stand up.

Of course you are trying to convince us, you've brought it up repeatedly and asked for people to explain it. When we do, you just tell us we're wrong. As LondonJohn pointed out, nothing stands up in your paper.

Elsewhere in America there are civil suits alleging death followed choke holds. Likewise I didn't save them and can't be bothered looking for them again. But I may despite Grace's death was an MMA fight.

Show us a suit for a choke causing instant death. The suits, as pointed out to you, are for chokes that restrict the airway and have nothing to do with the carotids.

 

[Fixit]

Well I don't know about you, but I'm definitely about to start a vociferous campaign to get all choke holds in MMA contests banned immediately: for heaven's sake, there's reliable medical evidence that a fighter could die instantaneously from such a choke hold being applied!!!

(Not)








Yes. Unfortunately what's been happening here is that Fixit has been inventing his own version in order to support his a priori beliefs. People have died in police restraint holds to the neck because they've been choked - and all too often suffocated, as you point out - for several minutes. That's plenty long enough to cause death. And some police officers who have caused deaths in this manner have been successfully prosecuted for murder.

How jolly. No idea that fighters strengthen their necks?

Of course your opinion about choke holds varies from the 1933 paper and the published book of Bernard Knight - the details of which I posted 'again' for you yesterday.

 

[Rolfe]

You're not understanding my meaning. Never mind why the blood was there or what it might say about the exact cause of death. We're talking about evidence of negligence while he was actually engaging in this supposed "breath-play".

I think we agree that any adult should know that restricting someone's ability to breathe by compressing their neck is something that is likely to cause death. The question then boils down to one of, was his behaviour while he was doing that reckless as to whether death actually resulted?

The only way to avoid such recklessness is to observe one's partner carefully. To be alert for signs that something is going wrong. If he had not been reckless he should have noted two things about Grace. That blood was coming from her nose and that she was unresponsive. Absolutely without doubt. Both of these things happened, when he was still up close and personal to her, and he was doing something which required care and prudence. If such care and prudence had been in evidence he would have noticed both things right then and there.

Instead by his own admission he didn't notice. Didn't notice that he had in effect climbed off a dead or dying body that was bleeding from the nose. Didn't check to see if she was responsive, never mind that she was still breathing. Just went into the shower.

This is not behaviour which seems to me to be consistent with someone who was being careful, as opposed to negligent, when he was doing something likely to cause death. So I'm for guilty.

 

[Fixit]

http://www.markwynn.com/wp-content/uploads/death-by-strangulation.pdf

This advances on the 1933 paper Gonzales. Indicates that death may follow from a choker hold without the intent of the officer and the difficulty at pm in determining culpability in suspected cases of strangulation - no comment about 'breath play', meaning that it likely has not be specifically studied because of the difficulty in confirming such cases.

This quote from disbelief above has a foothold for a defendant in even possibly a 'breath play' case:


"When pressure on the carotids is released, the flow of oxygenated blood resumes immediately and consciousness slowly returns. In contrast, if the airway rather than the carotid arteries is blocked, the subject cannot breathe, but his brain is still perfused with blood and he will remain conscious and may continue to struggle for a minute or more; he will lose consciousness only when the oxygen in the circulating blood is consumed and he collapses from hypoxia. Even if the hold is released at this point, the blood circulating through the brain contains no oxygen, and consequently the subject may not regain consciousness or resume spontaneous breathing. Possibly the most important element of training for the use of chokeholds in law enforcement is the understanding that the subject should always be able to breathe freely."

 

[LondonJohn]

Feel free to generously congratulate yourself.

What am I congratulating myself about?

Instead of imputing emotions to me, you should perhaps instead concern yourself with the fact that you've still not provided a shred of reliable medical evidence that a choke hold can impart INSTANTANEOUS DEATH in the person being choked....?

 

[Rolfe]

I don't actually care how long it took to kill her, or whether she died because of airway obstruction or carotid artery obstruction or the nebulous carotid sinus effect. He killed her while he was doing something to her which he knew carried the risk that she might die, and he was so negligent that he didn't actually notice she had died.

That's enough, under that statute.

To elaborate. It may well be possible to kill someone accidentally in this way. Despite the absence of negligence, something may go wrong. Alcohol is a depressant, and something that might not kill a sober person might be enough if she's absolutey plastered. However, in the absence of negligence, what we would be expecting is something like "OMG Gloria, wake up!" Not a trip to the shower and the assumption that she'd just got up and left.

 

[Fixit]

What am I congratulating myself about?

Instead of imputing emotions to me, you should perhaps instead concern yourself with the fact that you've still not provided a shred of reliable medical evidence that a choke hold can impart INSTANTANEOUS DEATH in the person being choked....?

Bernard Knight.

Go to pages 213-214 under heading Carotid Sinus Pressure:
'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.'

10th time lucky

 

[Fixit]

I don't actually care how long it took to kill her, or whether she died because of airway obstruction or carotid artery obstruction or the nebulous carotid sinus effect. He killed her while he was doing something to her which he knew carried the risk that she might die, and he was so negligent that he didn't actually notice she had died.

That's enough, under that statute.

To elaborate. It may well be possible to kill someone accidentally in this way. Despite the absence of negligence, something may go wrong. Alcohol is a depressant, and something that might not kill a sober person might be enough if she's absolutey plastered. However, in the absence of negligence, what we would be expecting is something like "OMG Gloria, wake up!" Not a trip to the shower and the assumption that she'd just got up and left.

That's a judgement on post death behaviour only?