Grace Millane murder - do we believe the accused?

isissxn said:
See, all that stuff sounds pretty good to me :D. :thumbsup: It's just the more violent play that scares me. But again, I truly don't make a value judgment beyond "yikes, not my thing." Until someone gets killed, and then I guess I start to sound a little judgy. But I'm not judging the activity itself so much as someone who enjoys it to the exclusion of caring about someone else's life.
Click to expand...
There are an infinite number of shades1 within BDSM. Rather few people are into branding, bleeding or having a Tucker connected to a conductive catheter...

I don't have a problem with people getting judgemental when someone is killed or significantly injured. As with any recreational activity that carries risk, participants should be aware, prepared and careful.



1 Not of Grey though....
 
Vixen said:
The operative word here is 'fantasies'.
Click to expand...
Sigh. People are more interested in BDSM, more accepting and more participating.
Out local dungeon munch is getting crowded.

Vixen said:
I can recall the punk era when many of my friends frequented the Roxy and the Embassy. Bondage tartan trousers, nose and tongue clips, shiny PVC, etc. Doesn't mean it translated into inflicting pain on each other during sex, Sid Vicious aside. I do recall Depeche Mode raising a few eyebrows with Master & Servant.
Click to expand...
Is there supposed to be a relevant point buried in this reminiscing?
 
Speaking as a vengeful harpy, I want to see him go down for the maximum. Speaking as someone interested in the legalities of the issue, I think it's not entirely clear at the moment just what the situation is.

I also wonder whether what the actual law states is the same as what people think it should be, and how this varies from one jurisdiction to another.
 
Rolfe said:
Speaking as a vengeful harpy, I want to see him go down for the maximum. Speaking as someone interested in the legalities of the issue, I think it's not entirely clear at the moment just what the situation is.

I also wonder whether what the actual law states is the same as what people think it should be, and how this varies from one jurisdiction to another.
Click to expand...



I think that what the law states in most jurisdictions in respect of this area is as follows (assuming for a moment that this case ends up with charges and a trial):

1) It can only be accidental death (and not manslaughter or murder) if the court decides that the defendant reasonably believed that he was doing no serious injury to the victim, and a reasonable person would have believed likewise.

2) If the court decides that the defendant did not intend to do serious injury to the victim, but a reasonable person should have known that his actions (or his negligence) were likely to result in serious injury or death, then it's manslaughter.

3) If the court decides that the defendant must have intended to do at least serious injury to the victim, and the defendant's actions resulted in the death of the victim, then it's murder.


In this particular instance - and in death-by-strangulation/suffocation instances in general - I believe it's usually difficult for the defendant to claim accidental death or even manslaughter. And that's because of the matter we discussed here earlier: the fact that in order to cause somebody's death in this way, a person has to apply constriction or compression for a period of time well beyond that where the victim loses consciousness and goes limp (generally something between 45 seconds and 2 minutes more). It's therefore usually pretty difficult to argue accidental death or negligence manslaughter - most reasonable people would relax or remove the constriction/compression fairly soon after the victim visibly loses consciousness and stops struggling, if they truly did not intend to do serious harm to the victim.
 
catsmate said:
A good point. Failure to seek immediate medical aid et cetera will be points against him.
Click to expand...



I'd say that if, for example, he'd fleed in panic, then - while this would still somewhat count against him - it would not be incompatible with someone genuinely finding a sex partner accidentally dead and not knowing what to do or whether he'll be believed etc. Especially if he'd told the truth as soon as the police became involved.

However..... what I think is particularly damning to him here is the seried of methodical steps he went to over an extended time period after the victim died. Quite simply, most juries would not find a) the actions of a genuinely-panicking person coming across the accidental death of a sex partner compatible with b) that person going out to buy a shovel and a large suitcase, hiring a car, wheeling the victim's body down through the hotel lobby in the suitcase to the rental car, driving out to the countryside, burying the victim within the suitcase, driving back, pretending nothing has happened, lying to the police by stating that the victim left the hotel of her own volition, then (I suspect) only changing his story when he was forced to do so after being confronted with the hotel CCTV evidence.......
 
...In addition, buying a replacement suitcase into fooling people it was still around. That shows cunning.

He told date number two that he knew lots of policemen and that they had told him there were lots of bodies buried out there.

Are there more? EMNTK
 
There have been themes running through many posts on this particular thread despite one witness having told the Court early on the 'defendant' have done or put pressure to the neck 'just right' or similar. I've mentioned that many times. It was an early indication that there was more to the case than appeared on the surface, there have posts about a 'consistent rumour' of an ex partner or girlfriend revealing that Grace had welcomed having pressure put on her neck by sexual partners.
That's come out now. The Defence expects to finish its case tomorrow and the estimate for closing addresses to begin Thursday - I think it may actually be tomorrow.
Unsurprisingly the defendant is not going to give evidence. Leaving Counsel to able to tell the Jury they've heard his evidence from the police videos.
My interest in whether the site (Tinder) through which Grace and the defendant met had encoded material for 'matches' of a particular type does not appear to be answered yet - although it emerged that Grace was a member of another site said to a meeting place for those who practiced or who were interested in BDSM.
 
That's actually one of the worst sources of info, given that it's a story whose headine is "Russia returns three Ukrainian navy boats seized in Strait of Kerch ahead of Putin-Zelenskiy meeting".
 
Tequila and an evidentiary protocol for arousal by restriction of the breathing apparatus.
I can imagine a significant margin for error that results in this tragedy.

The accused is clearly a fantasist with no secure vocation at age 27.
 
We seem to have rowed back some way from "stick a fork in him, he's done". It's an interesting case. I never believed that the accused had deliberately set out to murder Grace, or indeed anyone. The question was always, was he recklessly carried away to the point where his negligence and surrender to his basest instincts beomes culpable? And while my gut instincts here are still those of a vengeful harpy, I have wondered from the beginning whether that really would be murder or something closer to culpable homicide. Extracts from New Zealand law suggested that if he had indeed been reckless and negligent, given the nature of the act, it could come under murder.

However I'm not convinced the prosecution are really making their case here. They've totally failed to prove lack of consent, there's no proof that Grace tried to struggle or resist or indeed give any indication that she was in distress. The expert gave 90 seconds as a minimum neck compression to cause death, but there's nothing to say that for all of that 90 seconds the accused would have been aware that he was doing something that might lead to death.

His actions afterwards are something else. Surely there must have been a point where he should have called the emergency services? Did this really go directly from "everything's fine" to "OMG she's dead and definitely beyond help!"? One of the things I wondered if we believed was the stuff about thinking Grace had left the hotel room and falling asleep in the shower and only realising she was still there and actually dead some time later. It sounds highly improbable.

But does that make it murder? Does that even make it culpable homicide? Should he really be charged with failing to report a death and unlawful concealment of a body?
 
Rolfe said:
We seem to have rowed back some way from "stick a fork in him, he's done". It's an interesting case. I never believed that the accused had deliberately set out to murder Grace, or indeed anyone. The question was always, was he recklessly carried away to the point where his negligence and surrender to his basest instincts beomes culpable? And while my gut instincts here are still those of a vengeful harpy, I have wondered from the beginning whether that really would be murder or something closer to culpable homicide. Extracts from New Zealand law suggested that if he had indeed been reckless and negligent, given the nature of the act, it could come under murder.

However I'm not convinced the prosecution are really making their case here. They've totally failed to prove lack of consent, there's no proof that Grace tried to struggle or resist or indeed give any indication that she was in distress. The expert gave 90 seconds as a minimum neck compression to cause death, but there's nothing to say that for all of that 90 seconds the accused would have been aware that he was doing something that might lead to death.

His actions afterwards are something else. Surely there must have been a point where he should have called the emergency services? Did this really go directly from "everything's fine" to "OMG she's dead and definitely beyond help!"? One of the things I wondered if we believed was the stuff about thinking Grace had left the hotel room and falling asleep in the shower and only realising she was still there and actually dead some time later. It sounds highly improbable.

But does that make it murder? Does that even make it culpable homicide? Should he really be charged with failing to report a death and unlawful concealment of a body?
Click to expand...



I'd still point to two things:

1) The fact that it's a significant distance - in terms of time and effort - between choking/suffocating someone into unconsciousness and choking/suffocating them to death. In the sort of sexual activity being suggested, the aim is to take the person to that grey area between consciousness and unconsciousness, which is (apparently) the "sweet spot" for heightened arousal. I can well understand how/why this could occasionally (or even often) result in taking the person beyond that point and into full unconsciousness. But what I cannot understand is how/why (assuming this was consensual sex of this variety) one would continue to apply tight constriction or compression to the person for dozens of seconds beyond the point where they lose consciousness.

2) The sheer extent of intent and planning in his post-death actions and activities, and his initial lies to police (which only evolved when he was confronted with evidence that he'd been lying). Incidentally, not only did he do all of those things to transport and bury her body..... he also went on another Tinder date the evening after the death, during which he did not act in any way distressed. I'm afraid I find that incredibly difficult to reconcile with his claims to have been panicked and all over the place after discovering her "accidental death". Rather, that seems much more compatible with the behaviour of a psychopath, IMO.
 
Rolfe said:
We seem to have rowed back some way from "stick a fork in him, he's done". It's an interesting case. I never believed that the accused had deliberately set out to murder Grace, or indeed anyone. The question was always, was he recklessly carried away to the point where his negligence and surrender to his basest instincts beomes culpable? And while my gut instincts here are still those of a vengeful harpy, I have wondered from the beginning whether that really would be murder or something closer to culpable homicide. Extracts from New Zealand law suggested that if he had indeed been reckless and negligent, given the nature of the act, it could come under murder.

However I'm not convinced the prosecution are really making their case here. They've totally failed to prove lack of consent, there's no proof that Grace tried to struggle or resist or indeed give any indication that she was in distress. The expert gave 90 seconds as a minimum neck compression to cause death, but there's nothing to say that for all of that 90 seconds the accused would have been aware that he was doing something that might lead to death.

His actions afterwards are something else. Surely there must have been a point where he should have called the emergency services? Did this really go directly from "everything's fine" to "OMG she's dead and definitely beyond help!"? One of the things I wondered if we believed was the stuff about thinking Grace had left the hotel room and falling asleep in the shower and only realising she was still there and actually dead some time later. It sounds highly improbable.

But does that make it murder? Does that even make it culpable homicide? Should he really be charged with failing to report a death and unlawful concealment of a body?
Click to expand...

Happy birthday.

That's a few questions you've asked.

Another should be as to whether the 'game' was repeated toward unconsciousness more than once. The ex partner said they had a tapping system, 3 taps to stop - I don't know if he was asked if that would be repeated more that once but it seems likely.

A fair position to start with is that Grace was looking for a particular kind of partner who would indulge her desire. Again looking at the Crown's evidence was the text where she said 'they had clicked' that is her and the defendant.
 
LondonJohn said:
I'd still point to two things:

1) The fact that it's a significant distance - in terms of time and effort - between choking/suffocating someone into unconsciousness and choking/suffocating them to death. In the sort of sexual activity being suggested, the aim is to take the person to that grey area between consciousness and unconsciousness, which is (apparently) the "sweet spot" for heightened arousal. I can well understand how/why this could occasionally (or even often) result in taking the person beyond that point and into full unconsciousness. But what I cannot understand is how/why (assuming this was consensual sex of this variety) one would continue to apply tight constriction or compression to the person for dozens of seconds beyond the point where they lose consciousness.

2) The sheer extent of intent and planning in his post-death actions and activities, and his initial lies to police (which only evolved when he was confronted with evidence that he'd been lying). Incidentally, not only did he do all of those things to transport and bury her body..... he also went on another Tinder date the evening after the death, during which he did not act in any way distressed. I'm afraid I find that incredibly difficult to reconcile with his claims to have been panicked and all over the place after discovering her "accidental death". Rather, that seems much more compatible with the behaviour of a psychopath, IMO.
Click to expand...

Your first question indicates some naivety that the 'procedure' was like that of a surgeon at the operating table, with assistants, blood pressure and heart beat monitors. This was 2 people who had been drinking heavily - excited by the experience which lay ahead one who apparently liked to go close to the edge.

Your second point is not consistent with his comments about the 2nd date in his 2nd statement. You've often used the word 'provisionally', your diagnosis of psychopathy lacks evidence from the Crown as to what psychopathic behaviour entails in the circumstances of this case and you've 'provisionally' diverted to mind reading. I'm sure the Judge will give warnings to the Jury about drawing conclusions in such situations. My instinct gave the same conclusion at the outset but I was 'willing' to hear the evidence before I started re-assembling the gallows.
 
Ah, the antipodes. Thanks. Not actually my birthday here until tomorrow, but I suppose it's clicked past midnight in NZ.

I didn't think of them doing it more than once. It really isn't a wise pursuit. I think his unwise actions afterwards have made this look a lot worse than it would have been if he'd called an ambulance as soon as he realised she wasn't breathing.
 
isissxn said:
I asked you before if you really don't see a difference between negligently continuing to choke or beat a person you have in a helpless position and other types of negligence, such as packing a parachute wrong. You never answered.
Click to expand...
Let me remedy that oversight:

I see many differences, but also many similarities. I'm basing my assessment on the similarities: It's a legal activity. It's a voluntary activity. It's an activity that requires trust. It's an activity where carelessness or incompetence can get someone killed. It's an activity where, absent a clear indication of intent, it's impossible to discern negligence from murder.

I think there is a difference, because in the former case, it's not just a single whoopsie. It's an ongoing, active, physical beatdown of some sort.
Click to expand...
That almost makes the parachute scenario worse. Packing a parachute is a specific thing that has to be done right one time. You're doing it calmly, methodically, at your leisure.

Compare that to an amateur act of consensual passion, between two enthusiastic but untrained partners. I'd argue that the skydiver has a much greater burden of negligence, simply because his circumstances admit a much greater degree of mindfulness in the act.

Now, you're right about the intent part. And that is crucial. But still, something like this surely deserves a higher charge than someone whose actions caused a workplace accident. Intent gets greyer when you're actually choking someone within an inch of their lives and cross over. That's how I see it, anyway.
Click to expand...
That's not how I see it. Negligence is negligence. I think that a charge of negligence should be easier to prove in cases of violent sex play (and packing a parachute), simply because it's the kind of activity that a reasonable person would understand they had to be careful about. But I don't think a charge of negligence should be replaced by a higher charge.

What do the laws say about whether or not someone can consent to be assaulted, anyway? Does that vary by location?
Click to expand...
I'm sure it does. But sex play occupies a weird place in our society. We criminalize a lot of kinks we probably shouldn't. And people are gonna get it on however they like to get it on. We don't consider consensual sodomy rape, even though some jurisdictions make it illegal to consent to sodomy.
 
Fixit said:
Your first question indicates some naivety that the 'procedure' was like that of a surgeon at the operating table, with assistants, blood pressure and heart beat monitors. This was 2 people who had been drinking heavily - excited by the experience which lay ahead one who apparently liked to go close to the edge.
Click to expand...



I don't think it takes an operating table, assistants, monitors and a skilled surgeon to notice when the person whom you're choking/suffocating has become limp, unresponsive and unconscious. And to then carry on choking/suffocating that person for (at a conservative minimum) 45 seconds to a minute longer (count that out for yourself and realise how long a time period that is to carry on choking/suffocating an unconscious, limp and unresponsive person). Regardless of the level of alcohol intoxication. Maybe you think that's naive.




Your second point is not consistent with his comments about the 2nd date in his 2nd statement. You've often used the word 'provisionally', your diagnosis of psychopathy lacks evidence from the Crown as to what psychopathic behaviour entails in the circumstances of this case and you've 'provisionally' diverted to mind reading. I'm sure the Judge will give warnings to the Jury about drawing conclusions in such situations. My instinct gave the same conclusion at the outset but I was 'willing' to hear the evidence before I started re-assembling the gallows.
Click to expand...



Hmmm. Well firstly, I didn't diagnose him as a psychopath. I said that to go on another Tinder date the evening after you've witnessed the death of a previous Tinder date (regardless of whether through accidental death, manslaughter or murder) seems more compatible with the behaviour of a psychopath. Big difference. Though maybe you think that a reasonable person would go on another Tinder date the very evening after either witnessing or causing the death of a previous Tinder date, all the while acting like nothing had happened?

Secondly, I am in no way "reassembling the gallows". What I'm doing is giving my opinion on what I see as the two absolutely central issues in this case, namely:

1) the mechanism of Millane's death, and its compatibility (or otherwise) with claims to have been an accident arising from the actions of consensual sexual activity involving erotic asphyxiation; and

2) the combined actions of the defendant in the aftermath of her death (including the many well-considered steps he went to in transporting and burying her body, his Tinder date the very next evening, and his lies to the police about Millane leaving of her own accord - a story which he only changed when confronted with evidence of his lies), and their compatibility (or otherwise) with his claims to have "panicked" when he realised she had "died by accident" and that he was worried he'd be blamed.

And to me, the answers to the questions posed within these two central issues seem only to be compatible with a verdict of murder. I don't think that because I "want" him to be found guilty of murder, and nor do I think that out of any misplaced ideas of retribution or "justice for the victim". It just happens to be the result of my own analysis of this case.
 
Last edited:
That's the sticking point for me - the gap between unconsciousness and death.

If I could be convinced that this gap is just a couple of seconds, then it would be easier to think of this as an accident. But if the point of the activity is to give the recipient some kind of pleasure, then there's absolutely no point in continuing after she's passed out, and the guy should stop as soon as that happens, not continue for as long as it takes for her to actually die.

Unless HE's still getting some sexual pleasure from it, in which case lock him up.

But maybe I'm just a prude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom