One not repeated (as far as I know) is an explanation from you is about bruising on one side of the neck, depth of breathing on breath resumption etc, also the warnings in the recent links about 'breath play' and indeed indications that death might ensue within seconds?
Yep. I addressed the "bruising on one side of the neck" issue already. Perhaps you're not actually reading my posts carefully or properly?
And I've also addressed - so many times now that I've lost count - this concept of unconsciousness vs actual brain death. The former can take place literally within seconds of a choke hold. The latter simply cannot. If you like, I can explain the physiological processes at play here.
But a short-form primer might be this: a brain needs constantly-repleneshing oxygenated blood in order to survive; a brain can survive up to several minutes with a restricted or even terminated blood supply, provided that it shuts down all unnecessary functions (hence initial loss of consciousness). Finally though, if the supply of oxygenated blood is restricted or cut off for long enough, the brain will shut down irreversibly. That equals death. But there's no way that a brain can/will die simply from a short-term (at the very least, under a minute) deprivation of oxygenated blood. There's plenty of medical understanding of this subject.
To repeat myself I'm not sure about guilt in this case or if the murder was intentional or reckless, rather than accidental. Part of the reason for that is the 'logic jumps' such as both pathologists gave similar 'maximum' time efforts at strangulation but I don't know - perhaps you do - if they also gave minimum times. If you don't think so, you might agree that you've grabbed what has suited you and repeated it time and again as if you believe it's a complete answer when it may not be.
Cute that you're borrowing my paragraph construction! However, there are no "logic jumps" at all in play here. Firstly, both pathologists did indeed give minimum times for brain death to occur via a choking mechanism. Perhaps you missed the bit I wrote (and repeated several times) about the DEFENCE pathologist stating that it would takr 3-5 minutes of choking before the person suffers brain death. Again, maybe you should read my posts (and reports about the trial) more carefully. And the fact that you believe that I may have "grabbed what suited (me) repeated it time and again as if (I) believe it's a complete answer when it may not be" is interesting. And telling.
On whether this was an accidental or intentional homicide, I see that my explanation (which was also the prosecution's explanation, which must also have been the convicting jury's explanation) is still falling by the wayside. Shall I try again? Hmmmmm..... nah, I think not. But if you want the concept explained by someone other than me - and if you want to understand exactly why this must have been intent to seriously injure or kill, and not merely either an accident or just reckless behaviour - then maybe (in addition to reading my now-multiple posts on the subject) you could read the relevant court reports.
To answer another point. I'm unsure about the sequence of the photographs re apparent death but I do know they were time stamped. We've heard various versions here which are at odds with one another. Firstly, the moving away from the actual event causing death to judge using other events while acceptable in law is not precise in concluding the death may or may not have been accidental. The man is a train wreck and possibly a whole lot of other things as his 'cover up' showed, to such an extent that nothing would be surprising about his behavior. That is one thing I am surprised was not put to him in the police interview if there was reliable proof it was time accurate.
This makes no sense at all, whether in a factual or legal context. Firstly, the issue of whether or not this man took photos of Millane's dead body absolutely IS germane to the issue of whether her death was accidental or intentional on his part. Both the trial jury and any interested observer are fully entitled to ask themselves the following sort of question: If the man's version of events is true (i.e. that she died purely accidentally and upon discovering her dead body he panicked and worried that he'd be blamed), is this in any way compatible with taking photos of Millane's dead body? Or rather, is an act of taking photos of the dead body either definitely or most probably only compatible with the afternath of the intentional act of murder?
Can
you think of any reason why a genuinely "panicking" man would have taken the time and trouble to take photos of Millane's body? What use would such photos have served in that context? Why wouldn't he have volunteered the existence of these photos when he was first interviewed by the police?
(And by the way, it really isn't acceptable to keep going back to the "he was probably behaving unpredictably and haphazardly, so we can't rule out seemingly irrational acts such as this from an innocent man" attempt to explain things like this. They aren't reasonable explanations.)
Secondly,
of course it's both feasible and proper to make informed deductions from known evidence. And on the matter you're addressing above, it's entirely feasible and proper to go through the following deductive process:
1) The last of the photos that the man took of Millane, which depicted her unresponsive with her eyes closed, were taken at Time X;
2) The man's internet search history showed that he did various searches into the semi-wilderness area just outside Auckland - which happen to be the precise area in which he would go on to bury Millane - at Time Y;
3) It's reasonable to deduce that these internet searches were a) not just random, and b) part of his planning to dispose of Millane's body (on account of the fact that this is precisely where he subsequently DID dispose of her body;
4) Time Y is prior to Time X;
5) It's therefore reasonable to deduce that if he was taking photos of Millane
after the time at which he was searching online into the precise area in which he actually subsequently buried her body, then in all likelihood those photos are of Millane's dead body.
But let me know if you require further clarification.
There are reliable reports that the convicted man is facing further charges. Experience in NZ (and probably overseas) has it that where possible, all such charges are heard together - particularly with alleged serial offenders. It strikes me that witness #2 as to the alleged behavior of the offender on the 2nd 'date' we heard of had the elements of assault perhaps even attempted murder by the witnesse's account. So it's hard to know why that charge wasn't laid, did police decide the evidence lacked credibility? Would it have required a separate trial? I don't know you probably do though.
If this man is indeed facing further charges (or if indeed he's already been charged with further offences, and he's awaiting trial), then I'd suggest that the reason why there would be a second trial - rather than trying all the offences together at the time of the trial that's just concluded - is simply that these further alleged victims only came forward later and there just wasn't time to process everything in time to try these new charges in conjunction with the Millane murder charge.
If, for example, he ends up going to trial again charged with (say) the rape of another woman, then it's highly probable that this other woman only came forward to the police either shortly before or during this man's trial for the Millane murder. It takes a good amount of time for police to investigate matters such as these, and then for prosecution and defence counsels to prepare properly for a trial.
I do think it's a near-certainty that what DIDN'T happen was that the police and Crown had built their case against any second rape charges a good time ago, but yet decided for some reason not to try him for offences against both women (i.e. Millane and this new alleged rape victim) concurrently. That would have run totally contrary to judicial ethics and protocols.
after penning "a litany of factual errors", the words of Jonathan Eaton, when taking a year to deny Mark Lundy justice.
