|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
21st November 2019, 10:17 PM | #201 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 21,318
|
Well I picked that one wrong.
All good. There will be the obvious appeals though. Why has the nasty piece of **** still got name suppression? |
21st November 2019, 10:38 PM | #202 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
Seems like the jury's view of the evidence coincided with mine...... But yes, it's absolutely time to name the convicted man now. And it's interesting that the jury asked for a reminder of neck pressure timelines. As I tried to point out so many times, I think it was damning to the defendant that it takes so much longer, once the victim has been choked into unconsciousness, to actually choke them to death. No drunken abberation. No "sex game gone accidentally wrong". No intent on his part simply to cause her increased sexual arousal and to avoid inflicting injury upon her. No - actually the continuation of a choke hold applied to Millane's neck far, far beyond the point where she lost consciousness and became limp and unresponsive..... demonstrates clear intent on his part to cause her serious injury or death. Guilty of murder. |
21st November 2019, 10:41 PM | #203 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
|
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12287551
Interesting question from the Jury indicating confusion around application of pressure and its timing. All imprecise guesswork - all it ever could be. 'They asked: "Does 'when he applied pressure' refer to when he started to apply pressure at the beginning or can it refer to any time when he applied pressure?" Justice Moore said: "It is not limited to the beginning. It can be at any time during the application of force leading to death." Quite the Walter Mitty, but no apparent violence previously. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12287282 |
21st November 2019, 10:58 PM | #204 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
Guilty, exactly as I expected and predicted. This is no surprise at all.
|
21st November 2019, 11:05 PM | #205 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 21,318
|
The fathers statement for those that won't have seen it.
The bloke continues to be one of the most awesome people I have ever seen. More than I could do. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...ank-nz-support |
21st November 2019, 11:16 PM | #206 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
*sigh* Look: it's inescapably (and provably) true that it takes a very significant additional period of time - additional, that is, to the time it takes to choke a person into unconsciousness - to actually choke someone to death. Yes, of course there are variances in the precise time in seconds; but that's only to be expected, since quite a few variables come into play here. But irrespective of this, it's beyond doubt that once a person has been choked into unconsciousness, it MUST take a minimum of 45 seconds and a maximum of as much as 3 minutes of additional choking to actually cause death. And this means that the That's important. That's not anything like a "rookie mistake". That's not "a sex game gone accidentally wrong". Instead, that can only demonstrate clear intent on the part of the defendant to cause Millane serious injury or death. Otherwise, if he genuinely had been only interested in helping Millane achieve a heightened level of sexual arousal, why wouldn't he have removed his choke grip shortly after he noticed - as he must have noticed - that she'd lost consciousness? That's murder. |
21st November 2019, 11:24 PM | #207 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
Yes. Real dignity, poise and grace. However it's worth remembering that - though it can often be hard to do so - one must take these sorts of things out of the equation when assessing guilt or non-guilt of the defendant. The dead person's family will (QED) almost always be grief-stricken and highly emotional. And also, in a well-proven psychological process, it's often the case that the dead person's relatives - in seeking not only for answers about the person's death, but also looking for a third party to blame - can become fixated upon the guilt of anyone who ends up being tried in relation to the death. However, in this case, I do strongly believe that Millane's family's quest for justice and the outcome of the trial were identically aligned. I hope that it will, for them, provide some form of higher understanding and closure, and that it will enable them to get at least closer to carrying on with their lives within a grieving process. |
22nd November 2019, 12:41 AM | #208 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
|
Now that you feel your are on point, why was there bruising (internal) on only 1 side of the neck?
Your picking your evidence because you had decided he was guilty on the time of pressure - something the Jury agreed with in a similarly random way as you. The evidence you are avoiding is the instantaneous unconsciousness that can occur from pressure applied to the neck. And you, like me have no idea, of how many times Grace was taken close to unconsciousness or even into unconsciousness. And remembering that the 'exercise' as I understand it, is to have the breath stopped, an expert gave evidence that when breathing resumed it was shallow initially. That could mean that the exercise if repeated too soon might well be fatal. And you ignore the evidence of the former boyfriend whom said that Grace would tap 3 times when she had enough. Obviously she was tapping because she could not speak due to pressure on her neck. I don't know and neither to you, if after a period of time pressure was applied again as part of their sex play. Further you overlook the evidence from the sex expert who spoke about the trust developed between partners taking part in such delight. You overlook the lack of defence injuries, no small thing in this case, also no screams or noise heard in other rooms. As I've written before when the neck is attacked the person being attacked goes for the arms and hands of the attacker. So besides your reliance on counting, for which there is no record only qualified estimates, nor importantly the of number times unconsciousness or close to unconsciousness was navigated, not even starting points, no reliable barometer of the impact of alcohol in terms of intention of the man found guilty or indeed that of Grace. None of us will ever know - not a good place for a man starting a life sentence to be - guesswork by default. It has been cleared up today that the Crown have no proof of when the photos were taken BTW. |
22nd November 2019, 12:57 AM | #209 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
|
22nd November 2019, 01:08 AM | #210 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
|
|
22nd November 2019, 01:15 AM | #211 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
22nd November 2019, 01:21 AM | #212 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
22nd November 2019, 01:27 AM | #213 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
|
|
22nd November 2019, 01:30 AM | #214 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
|
22nd November 2019, 01:36 AM | #215 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
Obviously I haven't seen the instructions, but if I had to guess I would say that it seems likely that the Judge gave the jury several questions they had to answer in order to decide guilt or innocence, and one of them was something about whether the perpetrator was reckless or indifferent to the harm he was causing "when he applied pressure" to Millane's neck. The jury wanted to clarify what that phrase meant.
If the judge meant to ask whether he was reckless or indifferent when he started to apply pressure to her neck, then probably the jury would have said "how can we know?" and found him not guilty. But the judge meant "was he reckless or indifferent at any time while he was applying pressure?", and the jury decided he obviously was otherwise he would have stopped when she became unconscious. But that's just my reading of the question. What do you think it signified? |
22nd November 2019, 01:38 AM | #216 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
22nd November 2019, 01:43 AM | #217 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
22nd November 2019, 02:00 AM | #218 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
|
22nd November 2019, 02:55 AM | #219 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,942
|
Well...
Cunning applies to neither. In fact they are both extraordinarily naive in their expectations of the scrutiny they garnered. I get no pleasure from the downfall of either man, I think they are badly advised by nature. I do not believe either are wicked, provisionally I see Shakespearean styled tragedy everywhere. I think we need the transcripts and summings up in their entirety. I was impressed the jury had 3 weeks of transcripts immediately available, for reasons I will discuss later. |
22nd November 2019, 02:58 AM | #220 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
22nd November 2019, 03:09 AM | #221 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
You're apparently still not understanding that the And what's more, he must - by definition - have known that Millane was at best unconscious when this whole thing finished up (though any reasonable person would also have noticed that she was not breathing). Yet he, by his own But hey-ho: at least I know what I'm talking about..... Oh and given that the photos were taken on either his phone or his tablet/laptop, how can it be true that it's impossible to know what time they were taken? |
22nd November 2019, 03:12 AM | #222 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
Uh, what? The jury asked for further clarification on the judge's instructions in relation to relative timings of choking to achieve a) unconsciousness and b) death. What is it that's so difficult to understand. (And juries all over the world, every day, ask for clarification and/or repetition of some of the evidence during their deliberation. You're chasing down the wrong alley with all this "there was loads of confusion, therefore it should have been an acquittal" approach. You're wrong.) |
22nd November 2019, 03:17 AM | #223 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
Ah yes - let's add into the mix the fact that he was caught on CCTV rummaging through Millane's bag while she went to the bathroom in one of the bars/restaurants they were in. Definitely not the behaviour of a potential sociopath/psychopath. Not.
It all adds to a picture of the type of person this |
22nd November 2019, 03:50 AM | #224 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,041
|
|
22nd November 2019, 03:54 AM | #225 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,041
|
Apparently the suppression order will remain in place indefinitely until lifted by the court
|
22nd November 2019, 04:29 AM | #226 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 21,318
|
Long story short,
"Rumour" has it, as in he is He is also facing another rape case. So the suppression was there to not mix it, basically |
22nd November 2019, 04:32 AM | #227 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 21,318
|
And that is not enough to move that post btw mods
|
22nd November 2019, 07:33 AM | #228 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
Interesting....... veh interesting........
|
22nd November 2019, 08:16 AM | #229 |
Rough Around the Edges
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 7,686
|
Sorry, but happy dance on my end. Throw away the key, son.
|
22nd November 2019, 10:42 AM | #230 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
|
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
22nd November 2019, 10:55 AM | #231 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
|
22nd November 2019, 11:10 AM | #232 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
|
If the judge meant to ask whether he was reckless or indifferent when he started to apply pressure to her neck, then probably the jury would have said "how can we know?" and found him not guilty.
But the judge meant "was he reckless or indifferent at any time while he was applying pressure?", and the jury decided he obviously was otherwise he would have stopped when she became unconscious. But that's just my reading of the question. What do you think it signified?[/quote] You could well have it right, I don't know. We need to remember that neither the Judge or Jury in it's entirety may have been able to understand the Jury's question or if it was put as intended by all the Jury members, it's very vague - and that the Judges answer apparently allowed doubt among of 1 or more jurors to be pushed aside, even in such as basic way for one or more jurors to be able to say I 'was right' It sounds as if there was a dominant view within the Jury surrounding the critical issue - that doesn't mean the issue was fully understood. Also if there were further questions arising from the answer there may have been an uncomfortableness in asking further questions. "It is not limited to the beginning. It can be at any time during the application of force leading to death." For example how many times were there? Was it after a time where shallow breathing resumed? Was the immediate unconsciousness point known to Grace and did she point out where she liked the pressure to be applied - or was that even thought of. In the context of the Jury and the Judge all being at the trial when we were not, we can only pick at bones of information yet I still expect a critical question and answer would deal with the central issue of the death in continuity with other evidence and how it might have happened with all the relevant features. I don't know if that happened in this trial I have my doubts. What we do know is that the photos and body move loomed large - I think each part should have been compartmentalized until there was reasonable certainty about the death. I could say now that Grace was experienced at running red lights, looked for partners that would satisfy that. Whether that is correct or not I think NZ's way of approaching this entire trial may have been more than a little naive. We have no experience such cases and may have been limited in our approach to understanding and separating the issues where required. |
22nd November 2019, 11:17 AM | #233 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
|
Your second question is more guess work. Of course the photos have a time on them, but the death does not. If you know when the TOD was you are the only person in the world with that information.
You avoid answering the question of shallow breathing raised in evidence. Until you've done that the same thing you been saying for a week is pointless. Can you not comprehend that shallow or weakened breathing ceases sooner than strong robust breathing if pressure is re-applied? I'll leave that point until you make the effort to answer it. |
22nd November 2019, 11:30 AM | #234 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
The jury considered all these issues and came to the right decision in my view. One report I read is that it would have taken minutes (up to 10) for Millane to go from unconsciousness to death, not seconds as some here have speculated. The jury delivered its verdict quickly for a case like this, indicating little doubt that it was murder. I can’t see an appeal succeeding.
Vixen speculated earlier that the murderer was Australian, and this has not been contradicted as far as I can tell. No, a New Zealander. |
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
22nd November 2019, 11:32 AM | #235 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
You think the jury didn't understand its own question? Well, that's certainly a novel defence.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
22nd November 2019, 12:01 PM | #236 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
|
Ok, I see how you get trapped into chasing your tail. I hope you understand this in order that you don't have to repeat yourself, again, I know about the pathologists agreement over 'choking' time as approximate it may be. But what I don't know (perhaps the Jury did and if that is the case my point is lessened) is if there were directions (or even evidence) as the effects of intoxication leading to breathing stopping, the pressure applied (Jury did hear this) to cause immediate unconsciousness, the resumption of breath after choking, the resumption of breath after choking when it is shallow or weakened and how fresh pressure from that might impact fatally.
You see those are all factors of the 'game' that Grace involved in on that night and previously. So the Jury's question was bare and sharp to the point - but the actual issue of when the pressure was applied that resulted in death is extensive. I now feel the Judge may not have seen that either, but the question bare as it was was answered in the same way. Perhaps Defence counsel were wary of digging deep into choking concerned at how that may have impacted on it's client. Or perhaps they thought the witness who said the pressure was just right (or similar) would have struck home to the Jury (you deliberately don't mention that). In retrospect the Defence might consider it should have brought to Court witnesses experienced in 'choking' - veterans if you like. I know there was an attempt to bring friends of Grace to testify but they declined. Earlier you carefully used the word provisionally now you appear to be bragging despite that you 'provisionally' don't know the answers to the questions I've asked you and simply return to choking time. Don't be confused and think that I believe the man to innocent - as I've written before I don't know and I'm not sure how a Jury could know. The fact that purse is mentioned as supporting guilt, weakens surety. |
22nd November 2019, 12:45 PM | #237 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
|
Mathew Quote:
For example how many times were there? Was it after a time where shallow breathing resumed? Was the immediate unconsciousness point known to Grace and did she point out where she liked the pressure to be applied - or was that even thought of. What makes you think it wasn't thought of? And if it wasn't brought up, whose fault is that? It can only be the defendant's as he was the only person left alive to explain it. If it's not part of his story, why should the jury, or the judge, be making his defence for him? Firstly, on any Jury in NZ there may 2 to 3 ethnic backgrounds, English may not always be the first language. There are dominant Jurors - that would be circumvented if the question and answer were clearer. Some of our cultures would be horrified at the type of sex involved here. There might not be no way around it but that is the way it is. To your answer above. A defendant can't be blamed for a trial not inquiring further into those questions but they were brought up, if not all fully investigated - which is the whole point about both the question and its answer. The Judge was asked the question about the timing of the pressure, the Jury were earlier told of the pressure which rendered instant unconsciousness. It is the single most important evidence in the trial: Did Grace consent to having pressure applied to her neck? It appears she did, it was a practice of hers and there were no injuries indicating she fought against the pressure. Does it matter when the pressure was applied? Yes it does and how often. Does it matter how many times it was applied, and perhaps asked to be applied again. Or just applied again because that is how any request for pressure unfolded. Or because of drunkenness or heightened pleasure. Yes it does to culpability. Is there a point of shallow breathing where repeated pressure might more quickly cause death? I think so, but would like that clarified. There are people who know the answers to these general questions that had they been heard may have prevented guess work.There are people with this experience that may have assisted. Unfortunately we don't know all the details of the ex boyfriends evidence but it did with certainty show choking was something that Grace liked. She was part of 2 sites dedicated to this practice, there was talk about signals to stop, trust in a partner and so on. Did we get near an answer if the defendant just happened to be looking for somebody to strangle to death and found Grace. From there the doubts go on and on, no plan in place postmortem re the body, another date organised. Anyway this world of 'pressure to the neck' will start revealing information which will certainly surprise some of us and give more clarity perhaps to Grace's death. |
22nd November 2019, 12:48 PM | #238 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
|
In closing for now.
I remain interested in why there was bruising to only 1 side of the neck. |
22nd November 2019, 12:51 PM | #239 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
Supporting my earlier comment of 10 minutes strangulation.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...-a4293601.html
Quote:
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
22nd November 2019, 01:01 PM | #240 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I'm still interested in how long it would take to strangle someone if you were trying. It's the cross-over with the somewhat similar Gilroy case, in that he strangled his ex-lover without pre-meditation and probably without intent to kill (because at the time he had no means of disposing of the body), and then went on to cover up the killing by concealing the body (successfully in his case).
The situation was different in that there was no sex involved. They were presumably having a row and he lost control and went for her and throttled her. The time he was out of sight was limited and so how long would the actual strangulation have taken? Does this case illuminate that? His victim wasn't drunk. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|