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, 10:17 PM   #201
cullennz
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 19,832
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?
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, 10:38 PM   #202
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,461
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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?


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.
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, 10:41 PM   #203
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
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

Last edited by Fixit; 21st November 2019 at 11:29 PM.
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, 10:58 PM   #204
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,177
Guilty, exactly as I expected and predicted. This is no surprise at all.
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, 11:05 PM   #205
cullennz
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 19,832
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
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, 11:16 PM   #206
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,461
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
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.


*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 defendant convicted man MUST have choked Millane to the point where she became unconscious - limp, unresponsive, uncommunicative, eyes closed - but then continued choking her for something between 45 seconds and 3 minutes further until he caused her death.

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.
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, 11:24 PM   #207
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,461
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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


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.
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 22nd November 2019, 12:41 AM   #208
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
*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 defendant convicted man MUST have choked Millane to the point where she became unconscious - limp, unresponsive, uncommunicative, eyes closed - but then continued choking her for something between 45 seconds and 3 minutes further until he caused her death.

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.
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.
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 22nd November 2019, 12:57 AM   #209
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,177
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
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."
The confusion appears to be related to the judge's instructions, not to the facts of the case. They are simply asking the Judge what he meant by a phrase in his instructions - there doesn't seem to be any other confusion.
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 22nd November 2019, 01:08 AM   #210
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
The confusion appears to be related to the judge's instructions, not to the facts of the case. They are simply asking the Judge what he meant by a phrase in his instructions - there doesn't seem to be any other confusion.
Yes, but confusion over critical evidence is fatal to a fair trial.
If you can explain the question and the answer I'd be very grateful Mathew because it has me stumped.
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 22nd November 2019, 01:15 AM   #211
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 20,743
Originally Posted by Azrael 5 View Post
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.
Depends on the shower. I have a wet room shower so you could probably sleep on the floor.
__________________
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 22nd November 2019, 01:21 AM   #212
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 20,743
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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?
Possibly because he is facing other serious charges...??? They don't want to prejudice his trial?
__________________
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 22nd November 2019, 01:27 AM   #213
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Possibly because he is facing other serious charges...??? They don't want to prejudice his trial?
That's possible. He has an insignificant criminal history without violence. He seems, I say without data, a fantasist with emotional problems surrounding his childhood. He looks to gain approval and status with lies. None of that was something he was judged on.
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 22nd November 2019, 01:30 AM   #214
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,177
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
Yes, but confusion over critical evidence is fatal to a fair trial.
If you can explain the question and the answer I'd be very grateful Mathew because it has me stumped.
What makes you think it is confusion over critical evidence?

It appears to be confusion over a phrase in the Judge's instructions.
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 22nd November 2019, 01:36 AM   #215
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,177
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?
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 22nd November 2019, 01:38 AM   #216
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 20,743
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
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
Hmmm

Quote:
He left the family home after simmering tensions boiled over about his constant lying and allegations of stealing from various relatives.
I did spot he rummaged through Grace's bag whilst she went to the Ladies.
__________________
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 22nd November 2019, 01:43 AM   #217
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 20,743
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
That's possible. He has an insignificant criminal history without violence. He seems, I say without data, a fantasist with emotional problems surrounding his childhood. He looks to gain approval and status with lies. None of that was something he was judged on.
From the NZ Herald article, he does come across as a classic sociopath. Lies, charms, promiscuous, no remorse, manipulative, cunning, expects instant gratification, has no real feelings.
__________________
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 22nd November 2019, 02:00 AM   #218
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,177
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
From the NZ Herald article, he does come across as a classic sociopath. Lies, charms, promiscuous, no remorse, manipulative, cunning, expects instant gratification, has no real feelings.
Sounds just like Prince Andrew!
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 22nd November 2019, 02:55 AM   #219
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,359
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Sounds just like Prince Andrew!
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.
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 22nd November 2019, 02:58 AM   #220
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 20,743
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Sounds just like Prince Andrew!
Prince Andrew has committed no crime.
__________________
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 22nd November 2019, 03:09 AM   #221
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,461
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
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.


You're apparently still not understanding that the defendant convict MUST have carried on choking Millane for many dozens of seconds after she lost consciousness. Otherwise she wouldn't have died. He carried on choking her limp, unresponsive body. For at least 45 seconds more, and probably 2-3 minutes more. Have a think about that.

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 lies version of events, claimed that he only "discovered" that she'd died at a later time. Have a think about that as well. Having choked Millane for a very long period of time, he left her lying limp and unresponsive with apparently no concern for her welfare.

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?
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 22nd November 2019, 03:12 AM   #222
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,461
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
Yes, but confusion over critical evidence is fatal to a fair trial.
If you can explain the question and the answer I'd be very grateful Mathew because it has me stumped.

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.)
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 22nd November 2019, 03:17 AM   #223
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,461
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 defendant convict truly was. Oh, let's throw in the fact that he went on a second Tinder date the very night after the death of Millane. And while her body was lying somewhere in his hotel room. That certainly sounds like the actions and behaviour of someone who was sincerely panicking about an "accidental death" and worrying about whether he'd be "wrongly blamed". Not.
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 22nd November 2019, 03:50 AM   #224
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 31,830
BBC report

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-50512163
Captain_Swoop 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 22nd November 2019, 03:54 AM   #225
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 31,830
Apparently the suppression order will remain in place indefinitely until lifted by the court
Captain_Swoop 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 22nd November 2019, 04:29 AM   #226
cullennz
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 19,832
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
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 22nd November 2019, 04:32 AM   #227
cullennz
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 19,832
And that is not enough to move that post btw mods
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 22nd November 2019, 07:33 AM   #228
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,461
Interesting....... veh interesting........
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 22nd November 2019, 08:16 AM   #229
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 7,250
Sorry, but happy dance on my end. Throw away the key, son.
Butter! 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 22nd November 2019, 10:42 AM   #230
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 46,878
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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

Looks like my vengeful harpy instincts were bang on the nail.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 22nd November 2019, 10:55 AM   #231
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,177
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Apparently the suppression order will remain in place indefinitely until lifted by the court
The Evening Standard have named him on their front page today, so I guess they've decided they don't really care about New Zealand's suppression orders. The BBC have left him anonymous, for now.
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 22nd November 2019, 11:10 AM   #232
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
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?
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.
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 22nd November 2019, 11:17 AM   #233
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
You're apparently still not understanding that the defendant convict MUST have carried on choking Millane for many dozens of seconds after she lost consciousness. Otherwise she wouldn't have died. He carried on choking her limp, unresponsive body. For at least 45 seconds more, and probably 2-3 minutes more. Have a think about that.

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 lies version of events, claimed that he only "discovered" that she'd died at a later time. Have a think about that as well. Having choked Millane for a very long period of time, he left her lying limp and unresponsive with apparently no concern for her welfare.

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?
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.
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 22nd November 2019, 11:30 AM   #234
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,972
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
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.
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
lionking 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 22nd November 2019, 11:32 AM   #235
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,177
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
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
You think the jury didn't understand its own question? Well, that's certainly a novel defence.

Quote:
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.
This is some impressive straw-clutching.

Quote:
Also if there were further questions arising from the answer there may have been an uncomfortableness in asking further questions.
You seem to be very keen on suggesting things for which there is absolutely no evidence. Maybe it's just as well you weren't a juror yourself!

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?

Quote:
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.
That is literally what the trial process is for! It seems to have worked perfectly well on this occasion.
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 22nd November 2019, 12:01 PM   #236
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
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.)
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.
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 22nd November 2019, 12:45 PM   #237
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
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.
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 22nd November 2019, 12:48 PM   #238
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
In closing for now.
I remain interested in why there was bruising to only 1 side of the neck.
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 22nd November 2019, 12:51 PM   #239
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,972
Supporting my earlier comment of 10 minutes strangulation.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...-a4293601.html

Quote:
However, his defence was rubbished by a forensic pathologist, who said pressure must have been applied to Ms Millane’s neck for between five to 10 minutes, and he had never heard of an accidental death due to consensual sexual strangulation.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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 22nd November 2019, 01:01 PM   #240
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 46,878
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.

Last edited by Rolfe; 22nd November 2019 at 01:03 PM.
Rolfe 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
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 02:56 PM.
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.