Grace Millane murder - do we believe the accused?

[Rolfe]

It's a judgement about his behaviour at the time of death. He was up close and personal with her until she died. I don't think anyone has claimed that he left what appeared to be a living, breathing, responsive partner to go into the shower and she died later. At the point he "disengaged", shall we say, she must have been as good as dead.

A partner who was not negligent would have been careful to check that his date was OK after he'd choked her into unconsciousness. He wasn't. She pretty much died in his arms or died under him, and he didn't even notice. He just got up and went into the shower. That pretty much proves negligence as far as I can see. It is not behaviour consistent with someone who wasn't criminally negligent.

 

[Garrison]

I have to say I don't get what's so mysterious about the killers motivation. If he has engaged in this sort of 'play' before its entirely possible he has fantasized about just not stopping and Grace Millane had the bad luck to be the partner he finally indulged his fantasy with. No grand premeditation or deep plan, he just had the urge to do it and gave into that urge.

 

[Rolfe]

I have to say I don't get what's so mysterious about the killers motivation. If he has engaged in this sort of 'play' before its entirely possible he has fantasized about just not stopping and Grace Millane had the bad luck to be the partner he finally indulged his fantasy with. No grand premeditation or deep plan, he just had the urge to do it and gave into that urge.

I think that's possible, and that possibility is why the vengeful harpy part of me is happy to see him convicted. But as far as I know there isn't a shred of proof that was in his mind, and I don't think you can convict him on a mere possibility.

I think the evidence of negligence is essentially BRD and that's why I would actually have gone for guilty if I had been on the jury. NZ law doesn't require a mens rea intending actual death, just a knowledge that you're doing something that could result in death, and negligence about whether that actually happens. He's guilty on that count.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think that's possible, and that possibility is why the vengeful harpy part of me is happy to see him convicted. But as far as I know there isn't a shred of proof that was in his mind, and I don't think you can convict him on a mere possibility.

I think the evidence of negligence is essentially BRD and that's why I would actually have gone for guilty if I had been on the jury. NZ law doesn't require a mens rea intending actual death, just a knowledge that you're doing something that could result in death, and negligence about whether that actually happens. He's guilty on that count.

I'm not sure you're interepreting NZ law correctly as to the negligence aspect. The law actually states (as it does in E&W) that for it to be murder, the accused must either a) have had the intent to kill, or b) have had the intent to seriously injure, with negligent disregard for whether it might instead result in death.

So intent is required in both tests. But on test (b) above, imagine three scenarios:

1) Mr A acts with intent to seriously injure Mr B by shooting him in both feet.
2) Mr A acts with intent to seriously injure Mr B by stabing him in both thighs.
3) Mr A acts with intent to seriously injure Mr B by shooting him in the torso.

In (1) above, it's unlikely that the "negligence about the possibility of death" test would ever be passed if, for example, Mr B developed sepsis in both feet following the shooting and died. So it would be very difficult to prove murder.

In (2) above, it's likely that the negligence test would be passed if one or both of Mr B's femoral arteries was severed and he bled to death before an ambulance arrived. So I'd say it would be fairly easy to prove murder.

In (3) above, it's a total certainty that the negligence test would be passed, for reasons which should be obvious. In other words, Mr A could not use as a successful defence "oh I only intended to injure him and teach him a lesson".


So in our case, the court would still have had to find that the man a) must have intended to at least cause Millane serious injury through his actions, and b) even if his intent was only to seriously injure her and not kill her, he must have been negligent in his failure to realise that his actions might - and did - result in her death.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, possibly. But in that case it's how you regard the choking thing that's the issue. Clearly he was negligent. Clearly it's possible for choking to lead to death. The question is, does choking fit the category of "serious injury"?

If we werre talking about David Gilroy throttling Suzanne Pilley in a fit of jealous rage we would say definitely yes. Does this suddenly not apply when it's Mr Anonymous doing the same thing to Grace Millane during consensual sex? Genuinely interested here.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

For the 11th time:

If you're seriously trying to rely on a book written in 1933 - i.e. at a time when forensic pathology was in its total infancy - and which makes only a vague and unsubstantiated reference to instantaneous death in this manner...... when NO RELIABLE MEDICAL EVIDENCE HAS YET BEEN FOUND AMONG THE HUGE STRIDES FORWARD IN FORENSIC PATHOLOGY TO EVEN SUGGEST THE REALITY OF INSTANTANEOUS DEATH.....

.... then it really isn't worth trying to deal with your increasingly-desperate attempts to shore up your position.

Look: if Knight was correct in his unsubstantiated 1933 musings, then why - as Disbelief initially pointed out - has not one single MMA fighter died instantaneously from exactly this sort of choke hold to the neck. Can you even begin to imagine how many choke holds have been applied in how many MMA fights over all these years? Why is there not ONE reported case of instantaneous death, Fixit?

If you can answer this, then we may make some headway.


(And can we knock it off with the passive-aggressive smileys? They're getting increasingly tiresome. Thanks.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, possibly. But in that case it's how you regard the choking thing that's the issue. Clearly he was negligent. Clearly it's possible for choking to lead to death. The question is, does choking fit the category of "serious injury"?

If we werre talking about David Gilroy throttling Suzanne Pilley in a fit of jealous rage we would say definitely yes. Does this suddenly not apply when it's Mr Anonymous doing the same thing to Grace Millane during consensual sex? Genuinely interested here.

Yesm it absolutely does. And it has everything to do with the fact that Millane would have fallen unconscious long, long before this man released his choke hold and ended up choking her to death.

This is the critical point here. In a game of consensual sex play, the game is conclusively obviously over when the person being choked falls unconscious. That much must be crystal clear to anyone - including this man. And as the trial judge correctly appears to have said in his jury instructions, all concepts of "consent" end when one is unconscious.

So, by definition, Millane CANNOT have been consenting in any way to the continuation of the choking once she fell unconscious. And the man MUST have known a) that she'd fallen unconscious (limp, unresponsive, eyes closed, uncommunicative) and b) that to continue to choke her could only have been with the intent to at the very least seriously injure her.

That's precisely why (IMO, and in the view of the trial jury, obviously) the man's actions in this case passed the test for murder: he either a) must have intended to kill Millane when he continued choking her for such a long time after she fell unconscious, or b) must have intended to seriously injure her through this additional choking after unconsciousness, and was negligent and reckless in his failure to realise that this might have - and did - result in her death.


ETA: but to address your question about additional choking and "serious injury" (as opposed to death): the man might, for example, have tried to claim that he was only intending to cause Millane some level of brain damage, rather than outright killing her. If the law didn't allow for the "negligence" factor, then this might work as a defence to murder (though it would result in the lesser conviction for GBH). Fortunately, the law allows for the concept that even if someone genuinely DID only intend to inflict brain damage rather than death through continued choking of this sort, they should have realised that death was a reasonably likely outcome in any case. This is analogous to example (3) in my previous post.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, I think so. I find it difficult to see how you can say that choking someone to unconsciousness is not inflicting serious injury on them, even if it's consensual. If it was done by an attacker, the exact same thing, you'd have no hesitation in calling it serious injury. So he was doing something that inflicted serious injury, which he knew might possibly be fatal, and he was negligent at the point when he should have been vigilant for signs that all was not well.

I can't see how he gets off.

 

[Samson]

I was just having breakfast with a friend when a criminal defence lawyer he went to school with happened by. Remarkably he raised the subject of this trial and cited the prosecution closing address by Brian Dickie as being very powerful, by a colleague who watched it. The transcripts would be helpful if someone can concoct a compelling reason.

 

[Matthew Best]

I can't see how he gets off.

Apparently by choking people.

 

[LondonJohn]

Apparently by choking people.

Badummmmm......TISHHHH!

(Notwithstanding the gravity of this case and the heartache that has been inflicted upon Millane's family and close friends....)

 

[Rolfe]

Apparently by choking people.

Wins thread.


ETA: This is awful. I was going to nominate that for pith, but then I thought, FMW.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, I think so. I find it difficult to see how you can say that choking someone to unconsciousness is not inflicting serious injury on them, even if it's consensual. If it was done by an attacker, the exact same thing, you'd have no hesitation in calling it serious injury. So he was doing something that inflicted serious injury, which he knew might possibly be fatal, and he was negligent at the point when he should have been vigilant for signs that all was not well.

I can't see how he gets off.

Yes. Though I'd refine this more by saying it's the choking BEYOND unconsciousness that is where the intent to seriously injure or kill comes in.

If a person consents to being choked for the purposes of erotic asphyxiation during sex, then it's perfectly understandable (possibly even commonplace) for the person doing the choking to accidentally take things too far and render the subject unconscious. But at that point, the choker would remove his/her grip and allow the person being choked to regain consciousness (which they would do very quickly). So choking someone up to the point where they become unconscious - or even slightly beyond that point - is not indicative of intent to kill or seriously injure if it's within the context of a consensual sex act of this sort.

Where things change dramatically, in terms of intent, are in the several dozens of seconds BEYOND the point at which the person being choked falls unconscious that the choker continues with the choke hold. The choker cannot have failed to notice the person falling limp, unresponsive, etc. Yet the choker continues with the choke grip for all of those additional dozens of seconds. THIS is what can only reasonably be construed as intent to either kill or seriously injure.

 

[LondonJohn]

I was just having breakfast with a friend when a criminal defence lawyer he went to school with happened by. Remarkably he raised the subject of this trial and cited the prosecution closing address by Brian Dickie as being very powerful, by a colleague who watched it. The transcripts would be helpful if someone can concoct a compelling reason.

Interesting. It's always potentially tricky relying on real-time relaying of court proceedings by news reporters as an accurate verbatim source.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes. Though I'd refine this more by saying it's the choking BEYOND unconsciousness that is where the intent to seriously injure or kill comes in.

If a person consents to being choked for the purposes of erotic asphyxiation during sex, then it's perfectly understandable (possibly even commonplace) for the person doing the choking to accidentally take things too far and render the subject unconscious. But at that point, the choker would remove his/her grip and allow the person being choked to regain consciousness (which they would do very quickly). So choking someone up to the point where they become unconscious - or even slightly beyond that point - is not indicative of intent to kill or seriously injure if it's within the context of a consensual sex act of this sort.

Where things change dramatically, in terms of intent, are in the several dozens of seconds BEYOND the point at which the person being choked falls unconscious that the choker continues with the choke hold. The choker cannot have failed to notice the person falling limp, unresponsive, etc. Yet the choker continues with the choke grip for all of those additional dozens of seconds. THIS is what can only reasonably be construed as intent to either kill or seriously injure.

We seem to need three things here.

• An act which fits the category of "serious injury".
• A knowledge by the perpetrator that this act is capable of causing death.
• Negligence as to whether death actually ensues.

I think it is more than arguable that we've got all three, and the timing is merely a quibble. Can choking someone to or past the point of unconsciousness be described as a "serious injury"? I can't see that it isn't in that category, whether you want to wait until she has actually passed out before you believe it meets the criteria or not. (I'd say it meets the criteria anyway. If it's serious injury if you do it without consent, how does it suddenly not become serious injury just because there's consent? Think about other things BSDM participants do to each other by consent and tell me that none of them are in the "serious injury" category. I mean get real.)

Did he know that choking someone to unconsciousness was something that might conceivably kill them? I think everyone past the age of about eight has probably realised that.

Was he negligent? Yes, indubitably, because he didn't even notice that he was interacting with a corpse. He should have been careful to watch for breathing, for some responsiveness, and backed off if these weren't there. And become really alarmed if she remained unresponsive and not breathing. And the more so when he saw blood coming from her nose. That's how a non-negligent person would have responded to that situation. He went into the shower without realising his date was dead, and then decided she'd probably got up and gone home without actually looking to see.

I wonder if this was anything like the closing speech?

 

[Fixit]

For the 11th time:

If you're seriously trying to rely on a book written in 1933 - i.e. at a time when forensic pathology was in its total infancy - and which makes only a vague and unsubstantiated reference to instantaneous death in this manner...... when NO RELIABLE MEDICAL EVIDENCE HAS YET BEEN FOUND AMONG THE HUGE STRIDES FORWARD IN FORENSIC PATHOLOGY TO EVEN SUGGEST THE REALITY OF INSTANTANEOUS DEATH.....

.... then it really isn't worth trying to deal with your increasingly-desperate attempts to shore up your position.

Look: if Knight was correct in his unsubstantiated 1933 musings, then why - as Disbelief initially pointed out - has not one single MMA fighter died instantaneously from exactly this sort of choke hold to the neck. Can you even begin to imagine how many choke holds have been applied in how many MMA fights over all these years? Why is there not ONE reported case of instantaneous death, Fixit?

If you can answer this, then we may make some headway.


(And can we knock it off with the passive-aggressive smileys? They're getting increasingly tiresome. Thanks.)

Dealing with one point at a time Bernard Knights book was published in 1982 and updated in 1998. You are confused with Gonzales 1933 held as a first reference book.

 

[LondonJohn]

Dealing with one point at a time Bernard Knights book was published in 1982 and updated in 1998. You are confused with Gonzales 1933 held as a first reference book.

Well firstly, forgive me for confusing the two: your annotation of links is rather haphazard, and this Knight book wasn't even properly referenced (let alone dated) when you did add it as a link at the bottom of a post.

And secondly, Knight's opinion in this area simply isn't borne out by empirical evidence. As far as I'm aware, there is not one single academic paper from the past few decades which suggests - far less confirms - the phenomenon of instantaneous death from carotid sinus stimulation. If you do find an appropriate academic paper (that's to say a scientific study which has been properly reported, peer-reviewed and published in a recognised academic journal), then I'll be entirely happy to review my position on this. But as of now, I don't think any such paper exists. And until and unless this sort of study shows up, I think it's reasonable to hold the view that there's no such thing as instantaneous death from carotid artery stimulation.

But to take the "next thing at a time", you (and Knight) would need to pay serious heed to what has cropped up as an extremely strong body of evidence over recent decades: the outcome of choke holds in mixed martial arts contests. In contrast with most earlier wrestling, the choke holds applied in MMA are serious holds which cause immediate and extremely strong compression of one or both carotid arteries, and which will also stimulate the carotis sinus(es). If you or Knight were correct (especially Knight, with his pretty extreme though somewhat ambiguous claims), then one would expect a significant number of MMA fighters (in properly-organised and properly-regulated contests) to have suffered instantaneous death from the application of these choke holds. Yet...... (you know the rest).

So?

 

[Rolfe]

I have to agree that that trumps my experience with the two horses in which something strange happened due to what I think was unilateral carotid sinus stimulation. Whatever it was they didn't suffer any lasting effects, and I have no idea what would have happened if I had somehow managed to stimulate both sides.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have to agree that that trumps my experience with the two horses in which something strange happened due to what I think was unilateral carotid sinus stimulation. Whatever it was they didn't suffer any lasting effects, and I have no idea what would have happened if I had somehow managed to stimulate both sides.

There's no doubt whatsoever that carotid sinus stimulation, even on just one of the carotid sinuses, can cause instantaneous syncope (collapsing, fainting) in humans - and horses. And it's not at all uncommon. But that's to do with a (temporary) loss of consciousness. Not instantaneous death.


(I don't think it would make much difference at all to the outcome if both carotis sinuses are stimulated rather than just the one. It may be that it makes it more likely that the human (or horse) might collapse/faint. I certainly don't think it makes it any more likely that the human (or horse) will actually die.)

 

[Fixit]

Well firstly, forgive me for confusing the two: your annotation of links is rather haphazard, and this Knight book wasn't even properly referenced (let alone dated) when you did add it as a link at the bottom of a post.

And secondly, Knight's opinion in this area simply isn't borne out by empirical evidence. As far as I'm aware, there is not one single academic paper from the past few decades which suggests - far less confirms - the phenomenon of instantaneous death from carotid sinus stimulation. If you do find an appropriate academic paper (that's to say a scientific study which has been properly reported, peer-reviewed and published in a recognised academic journal), then I'll be entirely happy to review my position on this. But as of now, I don't think any such paper exists. And until and unless this sort of study shows up, I think it's reasonable to hold the view that there's no such thing as instantaneous death from carotid artery stimulation.

But to take the "next thing at a time", you (and Knight) would need to pay serious heed to what has cropped up as an extremely strong body of evidence over recent decades: the outcome of choke holds in mixed martial arts contests. In contrast with most earlier wrestling, the choke holds applied in MMA are serious holds which cause immediate and extremely strong compression of one or both carotid arteries, and which will also stimulate the carotis sinus(es). If you or Knight were correct (especially Knight, with his pretty extreme though somewhat ambiguous claims), then one would expect a significant number of MMA fighters (in properly-organised and properly-regulated contests) to have suffered instantaneous death from the application of these choke holds. Yet...... (you know the rest).

So?

What are your qualifications to question Knight, let alone suggest I need to provide peer reviewed papers? Knight's work is referenced and reprinted, is your work the same?

You've got no difficulty in holding yourself to 2 standards without apparently realising it. Knight and Gonzalez provide reference material from autopsy experience which is in fact empirical evidence, where yours? Gonzales gave guidance on how the throat or neck should be removed at autopsy and you claim that is not empirical? In support I put some links in noting that they were peer not reviewed papers which you immediately criticised. That's despite not even checking who Bernard Knight is/was and his probably unequaled experience in British forensics. Check outside your window and you'll find London is actually part of Britain.

So after being unable to disclaim sudden death in the manner both Gonzales and Knight identify you suddenly to jump to mma? Where the athletes are both trained and have the opportunity to 'tap out.' Putting it politely they do that in order that serious injury does not befall them. That link is indeed not empirical peer reviewed evidence but does give useful comparisons, that is all.

You seem unable to even have appreciated that 'sudden death' is at the other end of your spectrum of 10 minutes choking and is being used as an example of the 2 extremes facing a properly informed Jury. Something they would needed to have considered along with bruising to only one side of the neck that you claim to have the answer for but have never presented. Something which also would need to take into account that the pressure whatever it was and how it was applied, may have happened many times, even when breathing may have been in shallow recovery mode.

At the outset, and I can't say I knew otherwise, this thread opened with among things the claim 'he strangled her.' Lion King said the same a couple of days ago and you say it every day. Where is your proof that Grace was strangled? To Rolfe's credit she acknowledges that her opinion is driven by what happened after Grace died. Whereas your opinion which you kept saying was provisional is now claimed as some kind of victory to the point you know more than the forensic pathologists and those whose work no doubt they referenced, Knight and Gonzales.

I feel you need a smile.

 

[Fixit]

There's no doubt whatsoever that carotid sinus stimulation, even on just one of the carotid sinuses, can cause instantaneous syncope (collapsing, fainting) in humans - and horses. And it's not at all uncommon. But that's to do with a (temporary) loss of consciousness. Not instantaneous death.


(I don't think it would make much difference at all to the outcome if both carotis sinuses are stimulated rather than just the one. It may be that it makes it more likely that the human (or horse) might collapse/faint. I certainly don't think it makes it any more likely that the human (or horse) will actually die.)

'But that's to do with a (temporary) loss of consciousness. Not instantaneous death'

And again your wrong from Bernard Knight third edition.

"It is a matter of some dispute as to whether this reflex can cause immediate cardiac arrest or whether there has to be a period of marked slowing of the heart with negligible cardiac output – or whether an arrhythmia such as ventricular fibrillation precedes such an arrest. Probably any combination can occur, but it is an indisputable fact that collapse and apparent death can occur immediately on the application of pressure to the neck."

The dispute of course is not with you as you are not a internationally recognized pathologist or probably even an mma fighter. Though to help you, that last sentence would be well worth trying to get your head around. Particularly this part That it is 'an indisputable fact that collapse and apparent death can occur immediately on the application of pressure to the neck.'

I know who at least 1 of the 2 imminent pathologists who disputed the point made by Knight and Gonzales as to the cause - but that does not detract from the recognition of 'immediate death' which you continually fail to grasp.

 

[LondonJohn]

Haha I give up trying to debate with you on this ( )

And for the record, you can also "give me credit" for discussing this man's actions after Millane died. You must have missed the multiple times that I stated my opinion on this:

1) the near-impossibility of this man's claim to have finished sexual activity, and (by definition) released his choke hold on a partner who was now dead, but didn't even notice that she was lifeless, limp, unresponsive and uncommunicative.... but instead wandered off from the bedroom to take a shower, and only "discovered" that Millane was dead at a later time when he came back into the bedroom;

2) the man's proven internet searches in the middle of the night for the exact area where he later dumped Millane's body and "hottest temperature of a fire", and his later-timed photos of Millane - which, because of these relative timings, I (and the prosecution) contend musst have been photos of Millane's dead body - are entirely incompatible with his claims to have been "panicking";

3) the man's actions in going out to buy a suitcase the next day in which to cram Millane's body for transportation and burial, and his hiring of a car, are the actions of a carefully-planning methodical man and not a man who claims to have been "panicking";

4) the man's decision to go on another Tinder date the very next night after Millane died, and while Millane's dead body was lying in his hotel room are totally incompatible with a man who claims to have been "panicking";

5) the man's actions the following day in transporting Millane's body out through the hotel lobby to his hire car, driving out to the area he'd researched in the middle of the night Millane died, picking up a shovel on the way, burying Millane within the suitcase in that area, cleaning and returning the hire car, buying a replica suitcase, and then acting as if nothing had happened, are indicative of methodical planning and are incompatible with his claims to have been "panicking";

6) the man's changing stories when questioned by the police (firstly claiming Millane and he had parted before he even returned to his hotel room.... then being forced to change that story - when confronted with CCTV footate of him and Millane in the lift (elevator) on the way up to his hotel room - to a story in which he and Millane had gone to his hotel room but she later left of her own accord... then being forced to change his story again - when confronted with CCTV evidence proving that Millane had never left the hotel of her own accord - to his final story about her dying accidentally and him "panicking") ..... are incompatible with anything but the lying and evasion of a guilty man;


Did you perhaps miss the many times that I made these points?


Oh and on this whole matter of "instantaneous death from carotid sinus stimulation"... you must therefore necessarily believe that this man received a substandard defence. Because the defence never made this argument.

So I'd a) suggest you ask yourself why this claim was never made in this man's defence; and b) suggest (seriously) that you contact this man's lawyers and tell them about this phenomenon. I don't know: maybe they'll tell you that there's no reliable scientific evidence whatsoever of this phenomenon, and that this is precisely why they knew they could never make this claim in the man's defence

 

[Samson]

I think the problem here is that we must, and it is difficult to discuss without seeming disrespectful to the family, see the accused's life as a dichotomy.
Everything that happened before Grace died, and everything that happened after when it was clear to him she was deceased. His life is now on that latter phase.
The pathological lying that even his family tried to confront is present on both sides of this dichotomy.
I regard it as likely he lied about falling asleep in the shower and believing she had left when returning to his bed. But that does not aggravate the circumstances leading to her death. It is still almost certain that she consented to pressure on her neck, and that Moore j's instruction to the jury could or should lead to an acquittal on all charges we know were laid, which as I understand it are just murder. Obviously he would have expected charges on everything post her death, and certainly interfering with a deceased person in multiple ways. But the crown clearly chose to have one target in mind so as not to "confuse" the jury. If so it worked. This case is one where there will be no concerted activism crying gross miscarriage of justice, but rather a passion to describe correctly the physiology and the way the law went for the jugular, no pun intended.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think the problem here is that we must, and it is difficult to discuss without seeming disrespectful to the family, see the accused's life as a dichotomy.
Everything that happened before Grace died, and everything that happened after when it was clear to him she was deceased. His life is now on that latter phase.
The pathological lying that even his family tried to confront is present on both sides of this dichotomy.
I regard it as likely he lied about falling asleep in the shower and believing she had left when returning to his bed. But that does not aggravate the circumstances leading to her death.

No it doesn't. But it certainly does have significance and relevance when it comes to the matter of considering whether or not he murdered Millane.

It is still almost certain that she consented to pressure on her neck

I don't think it's at all possible to be "almost certain" on this point. I'd say it's feasible and possible. But in any case it's moot, because - as the judge appears to have pointed out to the jury - once she'd been choked into unconsciousness, all concepts of "consent" are null and void.

and (it is still almose certain) that Moore j's instruction to the jury could or should lead to an acquittal on all charges we know were laid

I fundamentally disagree.

which as I understand it are just murder.

No. The jury had the option of a manslaughter conviction as well. The judge made that very clear in his instructions.

Obviously he would have expected charges on everything post her death, and certainly interfering with a deceased person in multiple ways. But the crown clearly chose to have one target in mind so as not to "confuse" the jury. If so it worked. This case is one where there will be no concerted activism crying gross miscarriage of justice, but rather a passion to describe correctly the physiology and the way the law went for the jugular, no pun intended.

If the Crown believed there was sufficient evidence for a murder conviction, then it was entirely right and proper that this is the primary charge that was on the indictment.

And as I've pointed out, the jury were asked to consider whether the totality of the evidence - the most important of which was clearly a) the manner and mechanism of Millane's death, b) the man's actions, both in the close aftermath of Millane's death and in the ensuing 36 hours or so, and c) the man's changing versions of events when questioned by police - are sufficient to prove his guilt of murder BARD; or if not, whether they're sufficient to prove manslaughter BARD; or whether they're insufficient to prove either of these BARD (in which case they would have acquitted the man). The jury concluded (a).

Now if you're arguing that this man received an inadequate defence, then I'd have to ask why you think that and what his grounds for appeal would be. Likewise, if you're arguing that the judge's instructions to the jury were unlawful, I'd again have to ask you why you think that and what the man's grounds for appeal would be.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't think a lot of this matters. By choking her past the point of unconsciousness he was inflicting a serious injury. He must have known it was possible that that injury was capable of causing death. He was not taking sufficient care in that he was not observing her sufficiently closely to realise she wasn't breathing and was unresponsive and had blood coming out of her nose, which is negligence. That adds up to a murder conviction in NZ law.

And whether he was lying about falling asleep in the shower I don't know, but that's his story. By his own admission he did not notice that his partner was, not to put too fine a point on it, dead. That's negligence.

If he had come out with a story of realising in the moment that she wasn't breathing and so on, and had panicked at that point, then negligence might have been less obviously easy to prove. But he didn't. He said he didn't notice that the woman he'd been indulging in risky "breath-play" with was no longer breathing, was unresponsive and was bleeding from the nose, at the time it happened. Prima facie evidence of negligence.

 

[Samson]

In my view it is likely he "noticed" she was dead.
That is a strict literal and unemotive report.
The idea he went to sleep in the shower is not credible.
The prosecution have succeeded, and some view the conviction of murder as wrong because there were two alternatives, manslaughter and acquittal.

Moore j instructed acquittal on a simple ground which I stated in quotes.

The goal posts seem to be on wheels on this thread.

 

[Matthew Best]

Moore j instructed acquittal on a simple ground which I stated in quotes.

No, this is not what happened.

 

[Samson]

No, this is not what happened.

Of course it didn't happen but the instruction did, pending the accurate transcripts.
My post was straightforward, and I think the judge summed up in a circular fashion. I would have no trouble with manslaughter, despite the judge appearing to demand acquittal on that charge as well. because that gives the judge discretion in sentencing, and the appeal process can flow with due flexibilty.
I disagree with murder despite the enthusiastic application of form of law on thread.

 

[Matthew Best]

Luckily some kind person posted a link to a description of the Judge's summing up, so we can all see what he said, and he did not instruct the jury to acquit.

 

[Fixit]

Haha I give up trying to debate with you on this ( )

And for the record, you can also "give me credit" for discussing this man's actions after Millane died. You must have missed the multiple times that I stated my opinion on this:

1) the near-impossibility of this man's claim to have finished sexual activity, and (by definition) released his choke hold on a partner who was now dead, but didn't even notice that she was lifeless, limp, unresponsive and uncommunicative.... but instead wandered off from the bedroom to take a shower, and only "discovered" that Millane was dead at a later time when he came back into the bedroom;

2) the man's proven internet searches in the middle of the night for the exact area where he later dumped Millane's body and "hottest temperature of a fire", and his later-timed photos of Millane - which, because of these relative timings, I (and the prosecution) contend musst have been photos of Millane's dead body - are entirely incompatible with his claims to have been "panicking";

3) the man's actions in going out to buy a suitcase the next day in which to cram Millane's body for transportation and burial, and his hiring of a car, are the actions of a carefully-planning methodical man and not a man who claims to have been "panicking";

4) the man's decision to go on another Tinder date the very next night after Millane died, and while Millane's dead body was lying in his hotel room are totally incompatible with a man who claims to have been "panicking";

5) the man's actions the following day in transporting Millane's body out through the hotel lobby to his hire car, driving out to the area he'd researched in the middle of the night Millane died, picking up a shovel on the way, burying Millane within the suitcase in that area, cleaning and returning the hire car, buying a replica suitcase, and then acting as if nothing had happened, are indicative of methodical planning and are incompatible with his claims to have been "panicking";

6) the man's changing stories when questioned by the police (firstly claiming Millane and he had parted before he even returned to his hotel room.... then being forced to change that story - when confronted with CCTV footate of him and Millane in the lift (elevator) on the way up to his hotel room - to a story in which he and Millane had gone to his hotel room but she later left of her own accord... then being forced to change his story again - when confronted with CCTV evidence proving that Millane had never left the hotel of her own accord - to his final story about her dying accidentally and him "panicking") ..... are incompatible with anything but the lying and evasion of a guilty man;


Did you perhaps miss the many times that I made these points?


Oh and on this whole matter of "instantaneous death from carotid sinus stimulation"... you must therefore necessarily believe that this man received a substandard defence. Because the defence never made this argument.

So I'd a) suggest you ask yourself why this claim was never made in this man's defence; and b) suggest (seriously) that you contact this man's lawyers and tell them about this phenomenon. I don't know: maybe they'll tell you that there's no reliable scientific evidence whatsoever of this phenomenon, and that this is precisely why they knew they could never make this claim in the man's defence

Good idea. I could quote LondonJohn with well... no forensic pathology experience, not a single autopsy. Or a man with 100s and an international reputation with his third edition book on Forensic Science for Lawyers edited independently:

It is pleasant to record that the second edition of Forensic
Pathology consolidated the international reputation of the
original book as one of the foremost manuals of forensic
pathology in the English language. This new third edition
generally follows the same successful pattern, but there are
some significant differences.
The editorship is being transferred to Professor Pekka
Saukko and this volume is the product of the collaboration
with the original author. As with previous editions, the text
has undergone a complete revision to update where necessary and add new material where relevant. A major change is
the extensive use of colour to replace original monochrome
illustrations and in numerous new illustrations, including
micrographs. More than 300 colour illustrations have been
added, of which 175 are completely new from the archives
of both the Cardiff and Finnish institutes, and others.
Another major improvement has been in the reference
material where both corrections and numerous additions
have been made. ‘Further reading’ is intended for those
readers who do not have access to electronic libraries and to
offer an overview of the literature on a particular topic.
The new edition maintains the philosophy of evidencebased forensic pathology with emphasis on the avoidance
of over-interpretation, which regrettably still leads to
instances of miscarriage of justice.
It is hoped that the new edition of this well-established
textbook, with its emphasis on practical procedures and
common-sense evaluation of autopsy findings, will continue
to be of assistance to forensic pathologists all over the world.
Pekka Saukko
Bernard Knight

To assist you further the update on instant death from pressure to the throat is in a earlier post.

Would you consider writing a letter for me to send to the man's lawyer that you recently studied a record of basic experiments on mma fighters were choke out time was measured. He may understand how 'choke out time' disproves Professor Knights updated work. Jolly good.

 

[Fixit]

No it doesn't. But it certainly does have significance and relevance when it comes to the matter of considering whether or not he murdered Millane.







I don't think it's at all possible to be "almost certain" on this point. I'd say it's feasible and possible. But in any case it's moot, because - as the judge appears to have pointed out to the jury - once she'd been choked into unconsciousness, all concepts of "consent" are null and void.








I fundamentally disagree.







No. The jury had the option of a manslaughter conviction as well. The judge made that very clear in his instructions.








If the Crown believed there was sufficient evidence for a murder conviction, then it was entirely right and proper that this is the primary charge that was on the indictment.

And as I've pointed out, the jury were asked to consider whether the totality of the evidence - the most important of which was clearly a) the manner and mechanism of Millane's death, b) the man's actions, both in the close aftermath of Millane's death and in the ensuing 36 hours or so, and c) the man's changing versions of events when questioned by police - are sufficient to prove his guilt of murder BARD; or if not, whether they're sufficient to prove manslaughter BARD; or whether they're insufficient to prove either of these BARD (in which case they would have acquitted the man). The jury concluded (a).

Now if you're arguing that this man received an inadequate defence, then I'd have to ask why you think that and what his grounds for appeal would be. Likewise, if you're arguing that the judge's instructions to the jury were unlawful, I'd again have to ask you why you think that and what the man's grounds for appeal would be.

Your inexperience with NZ law and things generally around death by neck pressure is showing. Murder is the basic charge except in rare circumstances in NZ - perhaps a motor vehicle accident, a work accident, fatally firing a rifle that was thought not to be loaded and so on.

To borrow your word 'provisionally.' I think you provisionally shot yourself in the foot, particularly with your mma mumbo jumbo 'proving' that neck pressure or choke holds cannot cause sudden death.

Professor Knight is alive, is now 88 and living in Wales I gather - and still sharp as a tack.

 

[Samson]

Luckily some kind person posted a link to a description of the Judge's summing up, so we can all see what he said, and he did not instruct the jury to acquit.

Modal logic to the rescue, as in
"if p then q."

If The deceased "consented to pressure on her neck", p

Then the "jury must acquit of murder and manslaughter" q

Until we have the official transcript of the summing up, we rely on the stark media report that any juror is entitled to consider in isolation.

 

[Matthew Best]

That's not what he said.

He said first consider whether it was murder. If it was, no need to even think about consent.

The jury decided it was murder, therefore they didn't have to think about consent.

 

[LondonJohn]

Your inexperience with NZ law and things generally around death by neck pressure is showing. Murder is the basic charge except in rare circumstances in NZ - perhaps a motor vehicle accident, a work accident, fatally firing a rifle that was thought not to be loaded and so on.

Yeah, my inexperience about both those things was what led me to correctly analyse this case in advance of the verdict. Deary me.

(By the way, maybe you'd be kind enough - since you make the claim - to point out exactly which areas of my argument/opinion demonstrate "inexperience" with either NZ law or "things generally around death by neck pressure" (LOL). Oh and your claim that "murder is the basic charge except in rare circumstances in NZ" is both risible and incorrect - oh the sweet irony!)

To borrow your word 'provisionally.' I think you provisionally shot yourself in the foot, particularly with your mma mumbo jumbo 'proving' that neck pressure or choke holds cannot cause sudden death.

To risk repeating myself: LOL. I'm assuming you must believe that this man received an inadequate defence, seeing as not even his defence lawyers raised the possibility of instantaneous death from carotid sinus stimulation. So, Fixit: are you stating that this man's defence was inadequate to the point of being unlawful? I'd like a Yes or No answer please.

Professor Knight is alive, is now 88 and living in Wales I gather - and still sharp as a tack.

Yeah..... I'm struggling to see the relevance of this man's current state of being and state of mental agility. He's still entirely wrong in his views on instantaneous death from carotid sinus stimulation. Or maybe you'd like to find me a reliable academic paper which demonstrates its existence? Oh, what's that? No, you can't find one? Oh, well then.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Good idea. I could quote LondonJohn with well... no forensic pathology experience, not a single autopsy. Or a man with 100s and an international reputation with his third edition book on Forensic Science for Lawyers edited independently:

<snip of irrelevant nonsense>

To assist you further the update on instant death from pressure to the throat is in a earlier post.

Would you consider writing a letter for me to send to the man's lawyer that you recently studied a record of basic experiments on mma fighters were choke out time was measured. He may understand how 'choke out time' disproves Professor Knights updated work. Jolly good.

I repeat, Fixit:

If you think there's such a thing as instantaneous death from choking, as a result of pressure stimulation of the carotid sinus* (let alone that this is a "common" occurrence), then....

....you must by definition think that this man received an unlawfully=inadequate defence, since his defence never even raised this as a possibility.


Right?

So if that's the case, I assume you'll be contacting this man's defence team (or indeed the NZ Court of Appeal directly) pretty sharpish to tell them that they made a dreadful error in not providing this man with a proper defence, to the shocking extent that this man may have ended up wrongfully convicted.

Right?


* Do you at least know the difference between a carotid artery and a carotis sinus now?

 

[LondonJohn]

That's not what he said.

He said first consider whether it was murder. If it was, no need to even think about consent.

The jury decided it was murder, therefore they didn't have to think about consent.

Exactly.

It also needs to be borne in mind that even if* the judge gave the jury instructions which appear to have presented them with a viable route to acquittal....

,,,, this would actually be irrelevant in law, since the jury voted to convict.

It's only ever a problem in law if the judge gives improper instructions to a jury which lead them towards conviction, and the jury ends up convicting, In that scenario, there ought to be grounds for a successful appeal (with the likely outcome being a retrial).


* But, like you, I think the strong likelihood is that the judge's instructions to the jury in this case were appropriate and correct, and that the whole issue of Millane's "consent" became null and void the moment Millane became unconscious.

 

[Fixit]

Yeah, my inexperience about both those things was what led me to correctly analyse this case in advance of the verdict. Deary me.

(By the way, maybe you'd be kind enough - since you make the claim - to point out exactly which areas of my argument/opinion demonstrate "inexperience" with either NZ law or "things generally around death by neck pressure" (LOL). Oh and your claim that "murder is the basic charge except in rare circumstances in NZ" is both risible and incorrect - oh the sweet irony!)








To risk repeating myself: LOL. I'm assuming you must believe that this man received an inadequate defence, seeing as not even his defence lawyers raised the possibility of instantaneous death from carotid sinus stimulation. So, Fixit: are you stating that this man's defence was inadequate to the point of being unlawful? I'd like a Yes or No answer please.






Yeah..... I'm struggling to see the relevance of this man's current state of being and state of mental agility. He's still entirely wrong in his views on instantaneous death from carotid sinus stimulation. Or maybe you'd like to find me a reliable academic paper which demonstrates its existence? Oh, what's that? No, you can't find one? Oh, well then.....

I'm not finding you anything. You've got all the data and support date from the leading expert and no proof that he's wrong apart from your rambling on. Now a person called 'LondonJohn' without any forensic pathology standing insults a pathology/lawyer of eminent international standing - can't you see the problem <snip> Trying to use the verdict as proof you were 'provisionally' right about the outcome of the trial is nothing to do with the carotid artery or sinus issue which is settled despite your 'reinventions.'

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Personal attack deleted, Rule 12.

 

[Fixit]

I repeat, Fixit:

If you think there's such a thing as instantaneous death from choking, as a result of pressure stimulation of the carotid sinus* (let alone that this is a "common" occurrence), then....

....you must by definition think that this man received an unlawfully=inadequate defence, since his defence never even raised this as a possibility.


Right?

So if that's the case, I assume you'll be contacting this man's defence team (or indeed the NZ Court of Appeal directly) pretty sharpish to tell them that they made a dreadful error in not providing this man with a proper defence, to the shocking extent that this man may have ended up wrongfully convicted.

Right?


* Do you at least know the difference between a carotid artery and a carotis sinus now?

If you understood how the carotid arteries - (there are two of them) and the carotid sinuses work you would understand the relationship between the 2 when pressure is applied/interrupted gives the same result. For 2 weeks you've ignored that because you don't understand. Go play with the tap in the bath, turn it up and down and try to work out what causes the flow difference. Don't rush yourself or burst into tears.

I note your complete reversal on mma being the guiding light for the world concerning sudden or collapse or death from carotid pressure.

Introducing Professors Knight Saukko, but before that we have a comedy skit from LondonJohn explaining how mma hurts your neck but never kills you. <snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited again for Rule 12. More Rule 12 breaches will result in increasingly harsh sanctions.

 

[Fixit]

Exactly.

It also needs to be borne in mind that even if* the judge gave the jury instructions which appear to have presented them with a viable route to acquittal....

,,,, this would actually be irrelevant in law, since the jury voted to convict.

It's only ever a problem in law if the judge gives improper instructions to a jury which lead them towards conviction, and the jury ends up convicting, In that scenario, there ought to be grounds for a successful appeal (with the likely outcome being a retrial).


* But, like you, I think the strong likelihood is that the judge's instructions to the jury in this case were appropriate and correct, and that the whole issue of Millane's "consent" became null and void the moment Millane became unconscious.

More provisional guesswork?

 

[Matthew Best]

I repeat, Fixit:

If you think there's such a thing as instantaneous death from choking, as a result of pressure stimulation of the carotid sinus* (let alone that this is a "common" occurrence), then....

....you must by definition think that this man received an unlawfully=inadequate defence, since his defence never even raised this as a possibility.


Right?

So if that's the case, I assume you'll be contacting this man's defence team (or indeed the NZ Court of Appeal directly) pretty sharpish to tell them that they made a dreadful error in not providing this man with a proper defence, to the shocking extent that this man may have ended up wrongfully convicted.

Right?


* Do you at least know the difference between a carotid artery and a carotis sinus now?

If you understood how the carotid arteries - (there are two of them) and the carotid sinuses work you would understand the relationship between the 2 when pressure is applied/interrupted gives the same result. For 2 weeks you've ignored that because you don't understand. Go play with the tap in the bath, turn it up and down and try to work out what causes the flow difference. Don't rush yourself or burst into tears.

I note your complete reversal on mma being the guiding light for the world concerning sudden or collapse or death from carotid pressure.

Introducing Professors Knight Saukko, but before that we have a comedy skit from LondonJohn explaining how mma hurts your neck but never kills you. When are you going to write the book btw and should we expect an intro by Monty Python I like old Monty, he's not obnoxious and knows he's funny.

You seem to be having trouble using the "quote" function. Most of what you've written here was already said by a previous poster.