IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


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.
Tags Grace Millane , murder cases , New Zealand cases

Reply
Old 21st November 2019, 02:33 AM   #161
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,444
The prosecution say the photos are of a dead body, so presumably that is at least consistent with what they look like.

The defence say she was alive when the photos were taken (at least, that's what they seem to be saying).

The only evidence either way is that they were time-stamped after the defendant searched Google for "hottest fire" and "Waitākere Ranges", which the prosecution say is evidence he was already looking for ways to dispose of the body.

From what I've heard I'd vote guilty (while conceding that I've only read what's been linked to on this site, and didn't really do much more than that).
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 02:52 AM   #162
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,114
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
From the 2nd link both the Defence and Crown on the act of strangulation. Note the point I made earlier about the pressure to the arteries rendering a person unconscious instantly.

"Mr Brookie also said the absence of damage to Ms Millane's deep neck tissue supported a consensual encounter not an aggressive attack.
"A person who is being strangled against their will will fight, of course they will. If they can't use their hands they will fight in any way they can."
This morning Crown Solicitor for Auckland Brian Dickey told the jury someone couldn't possibly have defensive injuries if they'd quickly passed out; the court having heard this could take seconds if pressure was applied directly to the neck's arteries."
That just shows it was more likely the death was accidental than deliberate, but the law states that an act that is likely to cause death (which strangulation is) is still murder.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 03:00 AM   #163
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,444
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
That just shows it was more likely the death was accidental than deliberate,
I don't see that it does.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 03:02 AM   #164
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 19,996
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
That just shows it was more likely the death was accidental than deliberate, but the law states that an act that is likely to cause death (which strangulation is) is still murder.
Which says to at least me they will go manslaughter
__________________
"I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said.

2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 03:24 AM   #165
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,444
I'll be quite surprised if he doesn't go down for murder.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 07:18 AM   #166
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,215
This is why I started the thread. I really don't know what to think. It's not clear what happened, it's not clear what he was thinking and all that has to fit into the legal framework.

I think what is potentially dangerous in more general terms is a finding that killing a woman in this way isn't necessarily murder. It's too damn easy to fake, and I think an article I linked to earlier was a case where a husband did exactly that but because he wasn't caareful enough he wasn't believed. But if you're more careful, then she asked me to do it, she enjoyed it, I had no idea she'd stopped breathing - scary territory.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 21st November 2019 at 07:22 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 08:27 AM   #167
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 21,585
Playing devil's advocate, you could say that the defendant deliberately sought out a date who was into '50-shades of grey' fun and games so he would have a ready-made get-out clause to get erotic pleasure from killing her and abusing the corpse.

Two things about the Waitākere Ranges: (1) he mentioned to date no 2, [police told him] there were a lot of dead bodies buried there, and (2) he had search this before the death.

So it doesn't seem the defence's claim that that might have been a random 'I feel lucky' search as he suggests but a quite targetted one.

He also posted on her FB page she looked 'radiant and beautiful' the same evening. Given what happened, its sounds pretty creepy.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 09:52 AM   #168
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,215
I think if the killing had been premeditated the arrangements for disposing of the body would also have been both premeditated and a lot better.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 10:00 AM   #169
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 17,028
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
That just shows it was more likely the death was accidental than deliberate, but the law states that an act that is likely to cause death (which strangulation is) is still murder.


I'd say not at all. You're confusing a) choking to the point of unconsciousness with b) choking to the point of death. The latter takes considerably longer. At the very least, 45 seconds longer. All during which time the "victim" is lying there unconscious, motionless, limp and unresponsive with their eyes closed.

If the aim of the "game" was choking to just up to the point of unconsciousness (and that IS the aim, by the way), then it's basically inexplicable as to why someone would not only choke the other person beyond that point and into unconsciousness (which would be understandable), but to then carry on choking for that minimum of 45 seconds more.

Oh and on the point of the lack of defensive wounds etc, I echo what the prosecution say in response: nobody is claiming that Millane might not have wanted to engage in erotic asphyxiation (and indeed there's evidence that she was into this sort of thing). So of course she would not have put up resistance as the defendant started choking her. However, she'd have implicity trusted him to choke her only to the point just before she fell into unconsciousness. If she'd done this sort of thing before, it's highly probable that she'd understand that sometimes the choking carries on a little too long into full unconsciousness, and I'd imagine this is a (minimal) risk that practitioners of this sort of thing accept.

So I can easily picture a situation where Millane readily consented to being choked in an erotic-asphyxiation game, and where she accepted that the defendant might momentarily render her unconscious, but that if/when that happened, he'd obviously remove his grip and she would return to consciousness quickly. However..... it's clear from the evidence that what actually must have happened is that the defendant DIDN'T release his grip when Millane fell unconscious. On the contrary, he must have maintained his grip for a very considerable period of time further, until Millane died.

And that, of course, would easily explain the absence of defensive injuries etc. Millane would have had no idea of what was to happen, and the only point at which everything changed took place when she was already unconscious.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 10:01 AM   #170
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,618
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
This is why I started the thread. I really don't know what to think. It's not clear what happened, it's not clear what he was thinking and all that has to fit into the legal framework.

I think what is potentially dangerous in more general terms is a finding that killing a woman in this way isn't necessarily murder.
I think it's important to recognize the fact that dying from risky sex play isn't necessarily murder.

Sex play of this type is one of a wide range of risky activities that many people engage in voluntarily. Accidents happen. Deaths do occur. There are many contexts in which a bad actor can make murder look like an accident.

I think it would be very dangerous to find that killing a woman in this way is necessarily murder. I think murder in these circumstances has to be proven the same way as murder in any other circumstances. Not being able to determine whether it's really murder isn't a good excuse to call it murder by default.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 10:07 AM   #171
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 17,028
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I think if the killing had been premeditated the arrangements for disposing of the body would also have been both premeditated and a lot better.


Yep. I don't see premeditation at all. For lots of reasons, including the ones you give here.

Obviously any discussion of motive is a) speculative, and b) irrelevant to any assessment of guilt or non-guilt in any event. But if I were pushed to ascribe motive here, I suspect that (if I'm correct in my opinion that he has indeed committed murder) the defendant might have experienced powerful adrenaline-fueled feelings of control and dominance once he had his hands at Millane's throat; and that he was overcome with these intense feelings to the extent that he was compelled to maintain pressure on Millane's neck long beyond the point where she became unconscious.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 10:18 AM   #172
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 17,028
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think it's important to recognize the fact that dying from risky sex play isn't necessarily murder.

Sex play of this type is one of a wide range of risky activities that many people engage in voluntarily. Accidents happen. Deaths do occur. There are many contexts in which a bad actor can make murder look like an accident.

I think it would be very dangerous to find that killing a woman in this way is necessarily murder. I think murder in these circumstances has to be proven the same way as murder in any other circumstances. Not being able to determine whether it's really murder isn't a good excuse to call it murder by default.


I'll point out once again:

There's an extremely significant difference (in both time and effort) between

1) Choking someone into unconsciousness, and

2) Choking someone to death.

As I've also pointed out already, the aim of erotic asphyxiation is to become choked to the point just prior to falling into unconsciousness. If one is choked into unconsciousness, then it's absolutely obvious - to the choker (as well, of course, to the one being choked) - that the choking has gone just a bit too far for it to be effective in terms of heightened sexual arousal. I'd hope you'd understand that this is an absolute given.

And if you do understand that, then you'd also understand that the logical and reasonable thing for the choker to do at this point - assuming he genuinely has an interest in heightening his/her partner's arousal and has no interest in doing him/her any injury - is to release his/her grip from the partner's neck, in order for the partner to regain consciousness quickly.

What the choker does NOT do at that point - the point at which his/her partner falls limp, unconscious, unresponsive, eyes closed - is maintain his/her grip around the partner's neck for, at the very least, 45 seconds further. But that's precisely what the defendant, by definition, must have done.


In fact, can you point to any rational reason why a choker who a) was assisting a partner in erotic asphyxiation, and b) only had an interest in helping his/her partner attain sexual arousal, and had no interest in harming or injuring the partner....... would carry on choking the partner for a substantial time period after that partner fell into unconsciousness, rather than releasing his/her grip and allowing the partner to regain consciousness?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 10:33 AM   #173
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,618
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I'll point out once again:
I've seen this and considered it. I don't find it very compelling. I haven't responded because I don't feel strongly about changing your mind on this point.

I'm responding now so that you know I've considered your points, and you don't have to keep trying to bring them to my attention.

Quote:
There's an extremely significant difference (in both time and effort) between

1) Choking someone into unconsciousness, and

2) Choking someone to death.
I don't think the difference is all that significant, for drunk amateurs in the heat of the moment.

Quote:
As I've also pointed out already, the aim of erotic asphyxiation is to become choked to the point just prior to falling into unconsciousness. If one is choked into unconsciousness, then it's absolutely obvious - to the choker (as well, of course, to the one being choked) - that the choking has gone just a bit too far for it to be effective in terms of heightened sexual arousal. I'd hope you'd understand that this is an absolute given.
It's not an absolute given. Some people like edging breathplay. Some people like being choked out. Drunk amateurs in the throes of passion aren't going to be delivering precision-engineered sexual experiences. It's not nefarious to earn less than a perfect 10.0 in the erotic breathplay event at the sexual olympics.

Quote:
And if you do understand that, then you'd also understand that the logical and reasonable thing for the choker to do at this point - assuming he genuinely has an interest in heightening his/her partner's arousal and has no interest in doing him/her any injury - is to release his/her grip from the partner's neck, in order for the partner to regain consciousness quickly.
Again, drunk amateur.

And again, well-intentioned people get themselves and each other killed all the time during risky play.

This isn't even pure Kremlinology. It's Kremlinology, adulterated by a desire to fit a predetermined conclusion. You're inventing a whole theory of risky behavior that is less concerned with describing reality, than with describing a justification for charging him with murder.

Quote:
What the choker does NOT do at that point - the point at which his/her partner falls limp, unconscious, unresponsive, eyes closed - is maintain his/her grip around the partner's neck for, at the very least, 45 seconds further. But that's precisely what the defendant, by definition, must have done.
Again, drunk amateur.

Quote:
In fact, can you point to any rational reason why a choker who a) was assisting a partner in erotic asphyxiation, and b) only had an interest in helping his/her partner attain sexual arousal, and had no interest in harming or injuring the partner....... would carry on choking the partner for a substantial time period after that partner fell into unconsciousness, rather than releasing his/her grip and allowing the partner to regain consciousness?
Again, drunk amateur.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 10:38 AM   #174
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,536
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yep. I don't see premeditation at all. For lots of reasons, including the ones you give here.

Obviously any discussion of motive is a) speculative, and b) irrelevant to any assessment of guilt or non-guilt in any event. But if I were pushed to ascribe motive here, I suspect that (if I'm correct in my opinion that he has indeed committed murder) the defendant might have experienced powerful adrenaline-fueled feelings of control and dominance once he had his hands at Millane's throat; and that he was overcome with these intense feelings to the extent that he was compelled to maintain pressure on Millane's neck long beyond the point where she became unconscious.

I agree with this. The point I find somewhat confusing is the distinction between meaning to cause bodily injury (intent) versus indifference to whether or not injury is caused (due to being entirely focused on one's own gratification).

His behaviour afterwards IMO is not within the bounds of 'normal' panic, even allowing for people reacting differently to an accidental death. His behaviour indicates focus on himself even after killing her, and lack of normal moral emotions (possibly indicating psychopathy). That supports the probability that he didn't care what was happening to her during the incident either. Whether the jury interprets that as intent to cause injury could be the difference between murder and manslaughter.

I'm also not clear if the jury is able to consider manslaughter as an alternative?
Elaedith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 10:59 AM   #175
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 242
This thread shows the peril the defendant faces. Posters are guessing and being driven by particular aspects that they judge to be important. I note the precision that LondonJohn applies to events when he or no one can know - in other words guess work. I don't think there is a place for guess work in a case like this. Because guess work is not Justice.There should be a strong warning to the Jury that if they can't decide don't guess, if they are not sure BRD then acquit.
Being driven by particular points is not considering the totality of the evidence which is the job of the Jury, individually the points then collectively. It's okay to say "I don't know, therefore I must say not guilty."
Having said all that - there is a point on which the pathologists agreed that doesn't require speculation. I think we may learn by the Judges summing up any hints of the man's previous history that drives the summing up 1 way or the other - when in fact it should be balanced - because like us, even the Judge does not know what happened in that room, it wasn't a stabbing, a prolonged physical attack where defensive wounds were left, for what we can say 2 people willingly met and undertook particular sex that 1 of them was looking for.
Fixit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 11:08 AM   #176
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,536
I don't think anyone here is trying to act as though on a jury. People are just speculating on the questions raised by the case.
Elaedith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 11:19 AM   #177
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,618
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
I don't think anyone here is trying to act as though on a jury. People are just speculating on the questions raised by the case.
Some people here seem to be arguing that in some cases of apparently accidental death, where the motive is not known, the law should default to treating it as murder.

It's not about trying to act as a jury. It's about what we, as citizens, think the law should be, and what juries should be called on to consider, in cases like these.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 11:47 AM   #178
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 21,585
There was that case in Shire Green, Sheffield where the mother and half-brother father throttled their kids for a good ten minutes and place black bags over their heads.

The boys aged 13 and 14 were found some time later by the emergency services in their beds. Despite the adults being considerably bigger and excessively brutal, the boys were still alive (although probably irreversibly brain damaged) and died in hospital.

This seems to indicate that strangling someone to death is not just a whoopsie-daisy! event but takes real a sustaining of pressure.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 11:49 AM   #179
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,215
I said I found the prospect of it being clearly legal to kill a woman you're having sex with if you can make it look accicental to be disturbing. I didn't say I thought he should be found guilty on that account though.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 12:09 PM   #180
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I said I found the prospect of it being clearly legal to kill a woman you're having sex with if you can make it look accicental to be disturbing. I didn't say I thought he should be found guilty on that account though.
No you didn't Rolfe. Not only are these kinds of sex acts perilous but so is deciphering intention or recklessness. Some of us might think it was too dangerous situation to enter into, when in fact its apparent it is a situation entered into with some excitement and perhaps the danger heightens that. There was a 'sex expert' who gave evidence, but I haven't read any details - although I know the Court has been overflowing with those wanting to watch and listen.
Again things seem in a bit of a rush for us, I imagine it is going to be hard for a Jury to decide.
Fixit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 12:12 PM   #181
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,444
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Some people here seem to be arguing that in some cases of apparently accidental death, where the motive is not known, the law should default to treating it as murder.
I am struggling to see how you come to that conclusion.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 12:45 PM   #182
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,618
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I said I found the prospect of it being clearly legal to kill a woman you're having sex with if you can make it look accicental to be disturbing. I didn't say I thought he should be found guilty on that account though.
What about the prospect of it being clearly legal to kill someone by accident during sex? Or by accident during any kind of risky play?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 01:04 PM   #183
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
I am struggling to see how you come to that conclusion.
I don't. It may describe 'I'm not sure but I don't want him to get away with something.' I hope the possibility of that looms large in the Judges instructions. I've seen a prosecutor rub his fingertips together in front of a Jury and say 'there must be something.'What was he really saying? - one interpretation is that he was telling the Jury there was something that he knew which they didn't and they good safely could convict.
Eventually some of these cases end up in the 'safety' of manslaughter'. Neither Counsel have said manslaughter but from memory I think the Judge must explain the definition to the Jury and leave that as a possible verdict.
Fixit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 01:27 PM   #184
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,444
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but all my remarks and thoughts about this case, have been about this case and this case only, not other, unknown, cases - or some amorphous group of "some cases of accidental death".
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 01:28 PM   #185
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,215
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
Eventually some of these cases end up in the 'safety' of manslaughter'. Neither Counsel have said manslaughter but from memory I think the Judge must explain the definition to the Jury and leave that as a possible verdict.

Is there actually an offence called manslaughter in New Zealand?
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 01:58 PM   #186
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Is there actually an offence called manslaughter in New Zealand?
Yes it will be in our Crimes Act 1961 which you can find on google, or I shall look it up later. A person can be sentenced up to life.
Fixit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 02:02 PM   #187
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,536
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Is there actually an offence called manslaughter in New Zealand?
Apparently so.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM329319.html
Elaedith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 02:03 PM   #188
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,618
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but all my remarks and thoughts about this case, have been about this case and this case only, not other, unknown, cases - or some amorphous group of "some cases of accidental death".
That seems like a bad approach. Ideally, we want to see a consistent rule of law, that applies equally across all offenses in the same grouping. Post hoc "adjustment" of the law to fit a single specific case seems like a bad idea.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 02:06 PM   #189
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,215
Thank you, I just wanted to get the legal term right. Some countries call it manslaughter, some don't. I'd had it in my mind that New Zealand was in the latter category bu obviously I had misremembered.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 02:20 PM   #190
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,485
Neither defence nor prosecution asked for an option for manslaughter, both seem to be going for the jackpot. I don't know if this leaves the judge the option to call for this as a possible verdict.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 04:11 PM   #191
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,444
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That seems like a bad approach. Ideally, we want to see a consistent rule of law, that applies equally across all offenses in the same grouping. Post hoc "adjustment" of the law to fit a single specific case seems like a bad idea.
but I'm not suggesting there should be post hoc adjustment of the law?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 04:23 PM   #192
Azrael 5
Philosopher
 
Azrael 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,020
How does someone fall asleeep in the shower? Doesnt that suggest standing upright?
In the bath ,sure,but then again not for a number of hours,you soon wake up when water gets cold.

I vote guilty.
__________________
"I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown
Azrael 5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 06:10 PM   #193
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 17,028
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I've seen this and considered it. I don't find it very compelling. I haven't responded because I don't feel strongly about changing your mind on this point.

I'm responding now so that you know I've considered your points, and you don't have to keep trying to bring them to my attention.


I don't think the difference is all that significant, for drunk amateurs in the heat of the moment.


It's not an absolute given. Some people like edging breathplay. Some people like being choked out. Drunk amateurs in the throes of passion aren't going to be delivering precision-engineered sexual experiences. It's not nefarious to earn less than a perfect 10.0 in the erotic breathplay event at the sexual olympics.


Again, drunk amateur.

And again, well-intentioned people get themselves and each other killed all the time during risky play.

This isn't even pure Kremlinology. It's Kremlinology, adulterated by a desire to fit a predetermined conclusion. You're inventing a whole theory of risky behavior that is less concerned with describing reality, than with describing a justification for charging him with murder.


Again, drunk amateur.


Again, drunk amateur.


Nope. To me, "drunk amateur" cannot at all explain carrying on choking someone for a long period of time (at least 45 seconds longer, but even the defence's own witness estimate 2-3 minutes longer) after the person whom you're choking has become unconscious, limp, unresponsive with their eyes closed.

I'll say again (and I know you disagree, but I think it bears repeating): it's one thing to choke somebody to unconsciousness within the confines of performing erotic asphyxiation - even though this by definition takes things further than required for erotic asphyxiation*.

If Person A chokes Person B as part of a sex game involving erotic asphyxiation, it will be blindingly obvious to Person A exactly when Person B becomes unconscious. It may take a matter of mere seconds for Person A to choke Person B such that they fall unconscious. It may take several tens of seconds. But either way, there's (IMO) no chance that Person A, with his/her hands around Person B's neck, would fail to notice the point when Person B goes limp, closes his/her eyes and becomes unresponsive.

And when that point is reached, I submit that Person A - if he/she really is only intent on heightening Person B's sexual arousal through this technique and has no intent on harming Person B - would fairly immediately release his/her choke grip on Person B's neck, thereby allowing Person B to regain consciousness fairly quickly.

What, IMO, Person A would NOT do at the point when Person B visibly falls unconscious (again, if Person A really is only intent on heightening Person B's sexual arousal through this technique and has no intent on harming Person B) is to continue choking Person B - not just for several seconds or even up to 20-30 seconds longer, but for a minimum of 45 seconds longer, and more likely somewhere between 1 and 3 minutes longer..

And this, to me, is the crux of the matter in respect of the medical evidence and the certain actions of the defendant (certain in respect of the fact that he MUST by definition have continued to choke Millane for something between 45 seconds and 3 minutes after she fell unconscious). I just can't see this prolonged extension of the choke hold beyond unconsciousness compatible in any way with either a) a person whose sole intent was to try to facilitate the heightened sexual arousal of the person he was choking, or b) some sort of imprecision borne of having had too much to drink (and btw, the defendant had had several drinks that evening, yes - but he was in no way falling-down drunk or even unstable-drunk).

I guess, in the first instance, we'll see what the jury has to make of this issue....



* And again, I say "by definition" you've gone too far if the person you're choking lapses into unconsciousness, because of course once the person you're choking is unconscious, there's no chance whatsoever of any level of heightened sexual arousal. The aim of the game is to take the person to a point just before they fall unconscious.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 06:20 PM   #194
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 17,028
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
This thread shows the peril the defendant faces. Posters are guessing and being driven by particular aspects that they judge to be important. I note the precision that LondonJohn applies to events when he or no one can know - in other words guess work. I don't think there is a place for guess work in a case like this. Because guess work is not Justice.There should be a strong warning to the Jury that if they can't decide don't guess, if they are not sure BRD then acquit.
Being driven by particular points is not considering the totality of the evidence which is the job of the Jury, individually the points then collectively. It's okay to say "I don't know, therefore I must say not guilty."
Having said all that - there is a point on which the pathologists agreed that doesn't require speculation. I think we may learn by the Judges summing up any hints of the man's previous history that drives the summing up 1 way or the other - when in fact it should be balanced - because like us, even the Judge does not know what happened in that room, it wasn't a stabbing, a prolonged physical attack where defensive wounds were left, for what we can say 2 people willingly met and undertook particular sex that 1 of them was looking for.



Uh say what?

Firstly, are you referring to my references to timings, and specifically the time taken to kill someone by choking them, above and beyond the time when you've already choked them into unconsciousness?

If so, that not sheer guesswork, you know. Those timings are based on medical research in this whole area. And again, you might be interested in understanding that even the defence's own expert in this area estimated that it would easily take more than a minute, and probably somewhere between 2 and 3 minutes, for someone to choke another person between choking them into unconsciousness and choking them to death.

And secondly, there are such things as informed deduction and deductive reasoning. I realise you're using the word "guess" as a pejorative term, in order to support a position that if a jury (or, for that matter, an internet commentator) has to rely on "guesses" rather than empirical facts, then necessarily this introduces sufficient doubt as to require acquittal.

But these are not just plucked-out-of-thin-air "guesses" we're dealing with....
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 06:22 PM   #195
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 17,028
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Some people here seem to be arguing that in some cases of apparently accidental death, where the motive is not known, the law should default to treating it as murder.

It's not about trying to act as a jury. It's about what we, as citizens, think the law should be, and what juries should be called on to consider, in cases like these.


I don't think anyone - least of all me - is claiming or saying (or even implying) such a thing.

But if you do think that this is my position, then a) I'd suggest you read back through the several posts I've made, more carefully this time, and b) I can understand why this debate has been becoming so confusing of late.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 06:33 PM   #196
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 17,028
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What about the prospect of it being clearly legal to kill someone by accident during sex? Or by accident during any kind of risky play?


Oh boy.

Of course if the evidence supports the narrative of nothing more than an unblameworthy accident, then that's where the matter ends.

But it's the contention of me and of some others in this thread that the evidence actually does not support an accident-based narrative.

For me, the evidence in favour of, at the very least, manslaughter - but IMO murder - consists of a) the deduced fact that the defendant MUST have carried on choking Millane for a considerable time period (between 45 seconds and 3 minutes) after she became unconscious; and b) the defendant's various actions after Millane's death - including the careful researching, planning and executing of the removal and burial of her body, the (apparent) fact that he took photos of her naked body, the fact that he took himself out on another Tinder date the very next evening (while Millane's body was in the boot of his hire car, no less....), and his lies to the police (which only changed after he was confronted with evidence proving his lies).

And once again, I submit that there's a massive difference between choking someone into unconsciousness - which is already, by definition, choking someone beyond the point at which that person can experience heightened sexual arousal - and carrying on choking that person (even though it must be clear that the person has become limp and unresponsive with closed eyes) for a further 45 seconds to 3 minutes.

Count off 45 seconds and then carry on counting up to 3 minutes. They both represent a lot of time to carry on clamping your hands round an limp, unresponsive, unconscious person's neck and continuing to choke them.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 06:36 PM   #197
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 17,028
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Thank you, I just wanted to get the legal term right. Some countries call it manslaughter, some don't. I'd had it in my mind that New Zealand was in the latter category bu obviously I had misremembered.


The law in most countries which were formerly colonies of the UK is usually broadly based on England&Wales law, particularly in the area of definitions of criminal offences and the judicial process in general. I think, though, that each country will have developed its own version of case law based on that particular country's precedent cases.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 06:53 PM   #198
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 242
Summing up summary includes Judge. I think the report is wrong re the ingredients of manslaughter but will check.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other...cid=spartandhp
Fixit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 09:02 PM   #199
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,485
It is just reported they are close to a verdict 4 1/2 hours in. They have asked one question about timelines of applying pressure.

Last edited by Samson; 21st November 2019 at 09:05 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 09:41 PM   #200
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,485
Guilty of murder!
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.