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 23rd November 2019, 12:53 PM   #281
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,359
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I am having difficulty understanding what you mean here.

Quite apart from my difficulty in understanding, I'd make the general observation that people are convicted or acquitted in criminal trials based solely on the evidence introduced into those trials. If the evidence, taken in totality, is only compatible with guilt (which is effectively another way of saying that guilt has been proved BARD), then the person must be convicted. If the evidence, taken in totality, can reasonably be consistent with anything other than guilt, then the person must be acquitted. Simple as that.

And in the case which is the subject of this thread, I argue that the totality of the evidence is solely compatible with a scenario in which the man must have had the intent to do, at the very least, serious injury to Millane; and he caused her death. This therefore passes the test for murder, and he should have been found guilty of murder. And he was. I don't think a miscarriage of justice took place here.
This guy seems a hazard, and in need of constraint, whether or not a murder rap is the appropriate sanction. But the level of hysteria in NZ knows no bounds. For example 10 years ago there was a case where an ex-boyfriend of a 22 year old talked his way past her mother and into her bedroom, and stabbed her 216 times to death. He then used the defence of provocation, and was allowed to take the stand for two days to justify the obvious murder. Unsurprisingly this failed and he is doing 18 years wop.
Yet here is a well meaning female journalist saying

Ten years ago, there was another trial about the death of a young woman, killed by a man, which felt just like this one.

Sophie Elliot, 22, was stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend Clayton Weatherston just as she was about to move cities and start a new life. Weatherston, a narcissist, argued Sophie had "provoked" him into killing her, allowing the defence to, effectively, put Sophie's character on trial.

The case resonates for two reasons. One, it has also felt like Grace - not the accused - was the one on trial. Her personal life has been exploited, her motivations questioned, her most intimate moments spilled to the court. Secondly, the Elliot case also showed a fundamental misunderstanding by a patriarchal society about the way in which women run their lives.


During the trial over Sophie's death, the defence questioned, why, if Weatherston treated Sophie so badly, did she continue to stay with him? And, by painting her as undermining and nasty, they implied she somehow played a part in her own murder.

In reality, Sophie died because she said "no". She broke up with Weatherston, rejected him.
(the link is behind a paywall so no point posting)

The reality is New Zealand journalists use only local cases to illustrate their points, and miss the 30 odd women who have died in similar cases to Grace Millane in the UK.

In simple terms game theory says be very wary, don't leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition. It is clear that Grace Millane did but Sophie Elliott did not, and describing the cases as similar is ridiculous and demeaning to common sense.

Last edited by Samson; 23rd November 2019 at 12:56 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 23rd November 2019, 02:00 PM   #282
cullennz
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 19,832
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
New Zealand remains outraged at the breach of their suppression order.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12287727

Despite repeated warnings after the man's first appearance in December last year, dozens of publications repeatedly breached the suppression order.

In July, Google suspended its trending emails in New Zealand and apologised to Justice Minister Andrew Little after a mass email went to 10,000 subscribers naming the killer.

Following that, Little began work with the UK, Australia and Canada to see what more could be done to ensure suppression orders were obeyed.

At that time, there were fears in the legal community the continuous publication of the 27-year-old's name and details would compromise the trial.


Well let us see now, if a New Zealand woman met her death in London in a similar fashion would we all be quite happy to have no information after 12 months?
Nice generalisation, but I couldn't give a rats if the dudes name is all over the place, unless it affects his other case.
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 23rd November 2019, 03:07 PM   #283
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,268
lots of information coming out that was not allowed at the trial. This guy needs to be behind bars for a long time.

What the jury didn't hear

Flatmate went to bed with a knife
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 23rd November 2019, 03:21 PM   #284
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 46,879
Look at the photo of him in that first link. Either that policeman is tiny or the murderer is enormous.


https://resources.stuff.co.nz/conten...4522923678.jpg
__________________
"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 23rd November 2019, 03:25 PM   #285
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,359
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
lots of information coming out that was not allowed at the trial. This guy needs to be behind bars for a long time.

What the jury didn't hear

Flatmate went to bed with a knife
Interesting and somewhat damning. A couple describe fighting him off, which there is no evidence Millane did.

Good to see Mark Cooper being such a diligent judge after penning "a litany of factual errors", the words of Jonathan Eaton, when taking a year to deny Mark Lundy justice.

Of the 11 witness, Justice Moore ruled nine would be allowed to give evidence.
However, the man's lawyers appealed Justice Moore's pre-trial ruling to the Court of Appeal.
Shortly before the trial, Justice Mark Cooper of the Court of Appeal declined to release the Court's decision to the media.

Last edited by Samson; 23rd November 2019 at 03:26 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 23rd November 2019, 05:47 PM   #286
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,268
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Look at the photo of him in that first link. Either that policeman is tiny or the murderer is enormous.


https://resources.stuff.co.nz/conten...4522923678.jpg
It's called forced perspective.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 23rd November 2019, 05:56 PM   #287
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 46,879
I wondered about that but I didn't think that explained it. Perhaps you're right. No doubt we'll get other opportunities to estimate his size and weight.
__________________
"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 23rd November 2019, 06:35 PM   #288
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,359
Grace is roughly her father's height, he is a foot taller than Grace from what I can see.
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 23rd November 2019, 06:49 PM   #289
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I only keep repeating it because certain posters within this thread keep seeming unable to recognise and understand it, and keep attempting arguments which are fundamentally at odds with it.......
You probably know the quote about explaining is ..........
But don't be deterred.

One not repeated (as far as I know) is an explanation from you is about bruising on one side of the neck, depth of breathing on breath resumption etc, also the warnings in the recent links about 'breath play' and indeed indications that death might ensue within seconds?

To repeat myself I'm not sure about guilt in this case or if the murder was intentional or reckless, rather than accidental. Part of the reason for that is the 'logic jumps' such as both pathologists gave similar 'maximum' time efforts at strangulation but I don't know - perhaps you do - if they also gave minimum times. If you don't think so, you might agree that you've grabbed what has suited you and repeated it time and again as if you believe it's a complete answer when it may not be.

To answer another point. I'm unsure about the sequence of the photographs re apparent death but I do know they were time stamped. We've heard various versions here which are at odds with one another. Firstly, the moving away from the actual event causing death to judge using other events while acceptable in law is not precise in concluding the death may or may not have been accidental. The man is a train wreck and possibly a whole lot of other things as his 'cover up' showed, to such an extent that nothing would be surprising about his behavior. That is one thing I am surprised was not put to him in the police interview if there was reliable proof it was time accurate.

There are reliable reports that the convicted man is facing further charges. Experience in NZ (and probably overseas) has it that where possible, all such charges are heard together - particularly with alleged serial offenders. It strikes me that witness #2 as to the alleged behavior of the offender on the 2nd 'date' we heard of had the elements of assault perhaps even attempted murder by the witnesse's account. So it's hard to know why that charge wasn't laid, did police decide the evidence lacked credibility? Would it have required a separate trial? I don't know you probably do though.

Last edited by Fixit; 23rd November 2019 at 06:51 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 23rd November 2019, 06:56 PM   #290
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Smile

Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Not sure what you meant with the condescension..... maybe your efforts would be better served in figuring out the critical areas in this case properly.
Rinse twice and repeat.
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 23rd November 2019, 07:07 PM   #291
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 46,879
The clearest minimum time I read was 90 seconds. I was looking out for this because of the relevance to the Suzanne Pilley murder and the limited time window during which it was committed.
__________________
"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 23rd November 2019, 07:11 PM   #292
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,972
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
You probably know the quote about explaining is ..........
But don't be deterred.

One not repeated (as far as I know) is an explanation from you is about bruising on one side of the neck, depth of breathing on breath resumption etc, also the warnings in the recent links about 'breath play' and indeed indications that death might ensue within seconds?

To repeat myself I'm not sure about guilt in this case or if the murder was intentional or reckless, rather than accidental. Part of the reason for that is the 'logic jumps' such as both pathologists gave similar 'maximum' time efforts at strangulation but I don't know - perhaps you do - if they also gave minimum times. If you don't think so, you might agree that you've grabbed what has suited you and repeated it time and again as if you believe it's a complete answer when it may not be.

To answer another point. I'm unsure about the sequence of the photographs re apparent death but I do know they were time stamped. We've heard various versions here which are at odds with one another. Firstly, the moving away from the actual event causing death to judge using other events while acceptable in law is not precise in concluding the death may or may not have been accidental. The man is a train wreck and possibly a whole lot of other things as his 'cover up' showed, to such an extent that nothing would be surprising about his behavior. That is one thing I am surprised was not put to him in the police interview if there was reliable proof it was time accurate.

There are reliable reports that the convicted man is facing further charges. Experience in NZ (and probably overseas) has it that where possible, all such charges are heard together - particularly with alleged serial offenders. It strikes me that witness #2 as to the alleged behavior of the offender on the 2nd 'date' we heard of had the elements of assault perhaps even attempted murder by the witnesse's account. So it's hard to know why that charge wasn't laid, did police decide the evidence lacked credibility? Would it have required a separate trial? I don't know you probably do though.
You have doubts about guilt. The jury didn’t, and there’s nothing to show they did not properly consider all evidence, even the ludicrous “it was an accident gov, I swear it”.

Your doubt and Samson’s perpetual doubts about each and every judgement mean very close to nothing.
__________________
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 23rd November 2019, 07:25 PM   #293
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I wonder if the lack of injury was due to her being unconscious and not struggling? Maybe only light pressure is enough to block the airway?
There was bruising internally on one side of the neck Nessie. You might decide to read some of the links I posted earlier about 'breath play.' The bottom line seems to be don't do it, and that death can or might follow in seconds or up to minutes. Unfortunately it is not in the form of a peer reviewed paper. That is the reason I have said our Courts here did not frame the various possibilities well, as far as can be told by media reports - probably because this is the first case of it's kind for years the Court have dealt with.
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 23rd November 2019, 07:57 PM   #294
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 46,879
I wanted him found guilty from the start, because I think any man who kills a woman like that should be found guilty regardless of whether he thought he was being careful and didn't mean it and so on. That's the vengeful harpy position.

I did wonder about the possibility of a genuine error of judgement and how the New Zealand law would regard that, but with regard to the totality of his behaviour I didn't see him as the careful caring type who had just been trying to satisfy his partner and had got it slightly, fatally wrong.

Now that more and more is coming out about his character and behaviour I am entirely comfortable with letting the vengeful harpy have free rein.
__________________
"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 23rd November 2019, 08:07 PM   #295
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
You have doubts about guilt. The jury didn’t, and there’s nothing to show they did not properly consider all evidence, even the ludicrous “it was an accident gov, I swear it”.

Your doubt and Samson’s perpetual doubts about each and every judgement mean very close to nothing.
Nonsense. The prevailing argument is the time pressure may have been applied to the neck. I've put up links supporting that may be wrong and in fact not extend to minutes or anything near that. We don't know a minimum time that has been reported - the links show that it might be seconds.
Samson's perpetual doubts have nothing to do with me. He has over 8,000 posts so may post on every thread - I do not.
I researched shallow breath after a pathologist gave evidence about that at trial. I do not know if that point was enlarged upon but feel it should have been - because shallow breathing it obviously less robust than full breath. If recovery in a 'breath play' wasn't sufficient did it make a further and fatal stoppage of breathing more probable even if accidental, would a reasonable person know that or make the connection.
I think those are my concerns, but they go to the heart of the case - which is troubling whether a convicted person doesn't deserve a fair trial or not in your opinion, he/she do by Law.
A lot of the other issues where, as put by the Law Lords in Lundy, apparently suspicious but no more.
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 23rd November 2019, 08:14 PM   #296
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I wanted him found guilty from the start, because I think any man who kills a woman like that should be found guilty regardless of whether he thought he was being careful and didn't mean it and so on. That's the vengeful harpy position.

I did wonder about the possibility of a genuine error of judgement and how the New Zealand law would regard that, but with regard to the totality of his behaviour I didn't see him as the careful caring type who had just been trying to satisfy his partner and had got it slightly, fatally wrong.

Now that more and more is coming out about his character and behaviour I am entirely comfortable with letting the vengeful harpy have free rein.
Go for it Rolfe. He's certainly not a careful caring type, and we will find out more about him at sentencing. I will be interested in the evaluation of the evidence the Judge gives in deciding minimum parole. It's all ground-breaking and may reach our Supreme Court as it no doubt will be precedent setting.
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 23rd November 2019, 08:15 PM   #297
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
The clearest minimum time I read was 90 seconds. I was looking out for this because of the relevance to the Suzanne Pilley murder and the limited time window during which it was committed.
Ok thanks.
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 23rd November 2019, 08:28 PM   #298
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 46,879
Shorter times have been mentioned but I don't know how well referenced these were. The 90 seconds was from an expert.
__________________
"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 23rd November 2019, 09:03 PM   #299
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,463
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
One not repeated (as far as I know) is an explanation from you is about bruising on one side of the neck, depth of breathing on breath resumption etc, also the warnings in the recent links about 'breath play' and indeed indications that death might ensue within seconds?


Yep. I addressed the "bruising on one side of the neck" issue already. Perhaps you're not actually reading my posts carefully or properly?

And I've also addressed - so many times now that I've lost count - this concept of unconsciousness vs actual brain death. The former can take place literally within seconds of a choke hold. The latter simply cannot. If you like, I can explain the physiological processes at play here.

But a short-form primer might be this: a brain needs constantly-repleneshing oxygenated blood in order to survive; a brain can survive up to several minutes with a restricted or even terminated blood supply, provided that it shuts down all unnecessary functions (hence initial loss of consciousness). Finally though, if the supply of oxygenated blood is restricted or cut off for long enough, the brain will shut down irreversibly. That equals death. But there's no way that a brain can/will die simply from a short-term (at the very least, under a minute) deprivation of oxygenated blood. There's plenty of medical understanding of this subject.




Quote:
To repeat myself I'm not sure about guilt in this case or if the murder was intentional or reckless, rather than accidental. Part of the reason for that is the 'logic jumps' such as both pathologists gave similar 'maximum' time efforts at strangulation but I don't know - perhaps you do - if they also gave minimum times. If you don't think so, you might agree that you've grabbed what has suited you and repeated it time and again as if you believe it's a complete answer when it may not be.

Cute that you're borrowing my paragraph construction! However, there are no "logic jumps" at all in play here. Firstly, both pathologists did indeed give minimum times for brain death to occur via a choking mechanism. Perhaps you missed the bit I wrote (and repeated several times) about the DEFENCE pathologist stating that it would takr 3-5 minutes of choking before the person suffers brain death. Again, maybe you should read my posts (and reports about the trial) more carefully. And the fact that you believe that I may have "grabbed what suited (me) repeated it time and again as if (I) believe it's a complete answer when it may not be" is interesting. And telling.

On whether this was an accidental or intentional homicide, I see that my explanation (which was also the prosecution's explanation, which must also have been the convicting jury's explanation) is still falling by the wayside. Shall I try again? Hmmmmm..... nah, I think not. But if you want the concept explained by someone other than me - and if you want to understand exactly why this must have been intent to seriously injure or kill, and not merely either an accident or just reckless behaviour - then maybe (in addition to reading my now-multiple posts on the subject) you could read the relevant court reports.




Quote:
To answer another point. I'm unsure about the sequence of the photographs re apparent death but I do know they were time stamped. We've heard various versions here which are at odds with one another. Firstly, the moving away from the actual event causing death to judge using other events while acceptable in law is not precise in concluding the death may or may not have been accidental. The man is a train wreck and possibly a whole lot of other things as his 'cover up' showed, to such an extent that nothing would be surprising about his behavior. That is one thing I am surprised was not put to him in the police interview if there was reliable proof it was time accurate.


This makes no sense at all, whether in a factual or legal context. Firstly, the issue of whether or not this man took photos of Millane's dead body absolutely IS germane to the issue of whether her death was accidental or intentional on his part. Both the trial jury and any interested observer are fully entitled to ask themselves the following sort of question: If the man's version of events is true (i.e. that she died purely accidentally and upon discovering her dead body he panicked and worried that he'd be blamed), is this in any way compatible with taking photos of Millane's dead body? Or rather, is an act of taking photos of the dead body either definitely or most probably only compatible with the afternath of the intentional act of murder?

Can you think of any reason why a genuinely "panicking" man would have taken the time and trouble to take photos of Millane's body? What use would such photos have served in that context? Why wouldn't he have volunteered the existence of these photos when he was first interviewed by the police?

(And by the way, it really isn't acceptable to keep going back to the "he was probably behaving unpredictably and haphazardly, so we can't rule out seemingly irrational acts such as this from an innocent man" attempt to explain things like this. They aren't reasonable explanations.)


Secondly, of course it's both feasible and proper to make informed deductions from known evidence. And on the matter you're addressing above, it's entirely feasible and proper to go through the following deductive process:

1) The last of the photos that the man took of Millane, which depicted her unresponsive with her eyes closed, were taken at Time X;

2) The man's internet search history showed that he did various searches into the semi-wilderness area just outside Auckland - which happen to be the precise area in which he would go on to bury Millane - at Time Y;

3) It's reasonable to deduce that these internet searches were a) not just random, and b) part of his planning to dispose of Millane's body (on account of the fact that this is precisely where he subsequently DID dispose of her body;

4) Time Y is prior to Time X;

5) It's therefore reasonable to deduce that if he was taking photos of Millane after the time at which he was searching online into the precise area in which he actually subsequently buried her body, then in all likelihood those photos are of Millane's dead body.

But let me know if you require further clarification.



Quote:
There are reliable reports that the convicted man is facing further charges. Experience in NZ (and probably overseas) has it that where possible, all such charges are heard together - particularly with alleged serial offenders. It strikes me that witness #2 as to the alleged behavior of the offender on the 2nd 'date' we heard of had the elements of assault perhaps even attempted murder by the witnesse's account. So it's hard to know why that charge wasn't laid, did police decide the evidence lacked credibility? Would it have required a separate trial? I don't know you probably do though.


If this man is indeed facing further charges (or if indeed he's already been charged with further offences, and he's awaiting trial), then I'd suggest that the reason why there would be a second trial - rather than trying all the offences together at the time of the trial that's just concluded - is simply that these further alleged victims only came forward later and there just wasn't time to process everything in time to try these new charges in conjunction with the Millane murder charge.

If, for example, he ends up going to trial again charged with (say) the rape of another woman, then it's highly probable that this other woman only came forward to the police either shortly before or during this man's trial for the Millane murder. It takes a good amount of time for police to investigate matters such as these, and then for prosecution and defence counsels to prepare properly for a trial.

I do think it's a near-certainty that what DIDN'T happen was that the police and Crown had built their case against any second rape charges a good time ago, but yet decided for some reason not to try him for offences against both women (i.e. Millane and this new alleged rape victim) concurrently. That would have run totally contrary to judicial ethics and protocols.
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 23rd November 2019, 09:13 PM   #300
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,463
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
Go for it Rolfe. He's certainly not a careful caring type, and we will find out more about him at sentencing. I will be interested in the evaluation of the evidence the Judge gives in deciding minimum parole. It's all ground-breaking and may reach our Supreme Court as it no doubt will be precedent setting.


It really is not ground-breaking, and it won't ever get as high as the Supreme Court. No new precedent is being set here. A man choked a woman to death. He claimed it was an accident within the commission of a sex game. But the evidence proved otherwise.

If you want to consider similar situations, you might look at the issue of so-called "date rape". This too because a relatively new form of defence over the past 15-20 years or so: the defence (or attempted defence) being that the sexual acts were entirely consensual, but that the alleged victim subsequently "cried wolf" for some reason (defences typically cited the alleged victim's general shame, or not wanting to admit that they'd consensually cheated on a long-term partner). Guidelines for how to prosecute such cases gradually came into force in most jurisdictions around the world. But this was not the sort of matter to trouble supreme courts. And neither does the case we are discussing in this thread.

The only relatively-new element here is the attempted (but failed) defence based on consensual erotic asphyxiation. And if any new guidelines are to come into force, they will only be general guidelines around the limitations and exclusions to this sort of "sex game" defence. But all of that is effectively irrelevant in this case, because the man's "sex game" defence did not work: he is (IMO) safely convicted.
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 23rd November 2019, 09:16 PM   #301
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yep. I addressed the "bruising on one side of the neck" issue already. Perhaps you're not actually reading my posts carefully or properly?

And I've also addressed - so many times now that I've lost count - this concept of unconsciousness vs actual brain death. The former can take place literally within seconds of a choke hold. The latter simply cannot. If you like, I can explain the physiological processes at play here.

But a short-form primer might be this: a brain needs constantly-repleneshing oxygenated blood in order to survive; a brain can survive up to several minutes with a restricted or even terminated blood supply, provided that it shuts down all unnecessary functions (hence initial loss of consciousness). Finally though, if the supply of oxygenated blood is restricted or cut off for long enough, the brain will shut down irreversibly. That equals death. But there's no way that a brain can/will die simply from a short-term (at the very least, under a minute) deprivation of oxygenated blood. There's plenty of medical understanding of this subject.







Cute that you're borrowing my paragraph construction! However, there are no "logic jumps" at all in play here. Firstly, both pathologists did indeed give minimum times for brain death to occur via a choking mechanism. Perhaps you missed the bit I wrote (and repeated several times) about the DEFENCE pathologist stating that it would takr 3-5 minutes of choking before the person suffers brain death. Again, maybe you should read my posts (and reports about the trial) more carefully. And the fact that you believe that I may have "grabbed what suited (me) repeated it time and again as if (I) believe it's a complete answer when it may not be" is interesting. And telling.

On whether this was an accidental or intentional homicide, I see that my explanation (which was also the prosecution's explanation, which must also have been the convicting jury's explanation) is still falling by the wayside. Shall I try again? Hmmmmm..... nah, I think not. But if you want the concept explained by someone other than me - and if you want to understand exactly why this must have been intent to seriously injure or kill, and not merely either an accident or just reckless behaviour - then maybe (in addition to reading my now-multiple posts on the subject) you could read the relevant court reports.








This makes no sense at all, whether in a factual or legal context. Firstly, the issue of whether or not this man took photos of Millane's dead body absolutely IS germane to the issue of whether her death was accidental or intentional on his part. Both the trial jury and any interested observer are fully entitled to ask themselves the following sort of question: If the man's version of events is true (i.e. that she died purely accidentally and upon discovering her dead body he panicked and worried that he'd be blamed), is this in any way compatible with taking photos of Millane's dead body? Or rather, is an act of taking photos of the dead body either definitely or most probably only compatible with the afternath of the intentional act of murder?

Can you think of any reason why a genuinely "panicking" man would have taken the time and trouble to take photos of Millane's body? What use would such photos have served in that context? Why wouldn't he have volunteered the existence of these photos when he was first interviewed by the police?

(And by the way, it really isn't acceptable to keep going back to the "he was probably behaving unpredictably and haphazardly, so we can't rule out seemingly irrational acts such as this from an innocent man" attempt to explain things like this. They aren't reasonable explanations.)


Secondly, of course it's both feasible and proper to make informed deductions from known evidence. And on the matter you're addressing above, it's entirely feasible and proper to go through the following deductive process:

1) The last of the photos that the man took of Millane, which depicted her unresponsive with her eyes closed, were taken at Time X;

2) The man's internet search history showed that he did various searches into the semi-wilderness area just outside Auckland - which happen to be the precise area in which he would go on to bury Millane - at Time Y;

3) It's reasonable to deduce that these internet searches were a) not just random, and b) part of his planning to dispose of Millane's body (on account of the fact that this is precisely where he subsequently DID dispose of her body;

4) Time Y is prior to Time X;

5) It's therefore reasonable to deduce that if he was taking photos of Millane after the time at which he was searching online into the precise area in which he actually subsequently buried her body, then in all likelihood those photos are of Millane's dead body.

But let me know if you require further clarification.







If this man is indeed facing further charges (or if indeed he's already been charged with further offences, and he's awaiting trial), then I'd suggest that the reason why there would be a second trial - rather than trying all the offences together at the time of the trial that's just concluded - is simply that these further alleged victims only came forward later and there just wasn't time to process everything in time to try these new charges in conjunction with the Millane murder charge.

If, for example, he ends up going to trial again charged with (say) the rape of another woman, then it's highly probable that this other woman only came forward to the police either shortly before or during this man's trial for the Millane murder. It takes a good amount of time for police to investigate matters such as these, and then for prosecution and defence counsels to prepare properly for a trial.

I do think it's a near-certainty that what DIDN'T happen was that the police and Crown had built their case against any second rape charges a good time ago, but yet decided for some reason not to try him for offences against both women (i.e. Millane and this new alleged rape victim) concurrently. That would have run totally contrary to judicial ethics and protocols.
So what is bruising explanation for only 1 side of neck?

Last edited by Fixit; 23rd November 2019 at 09:30 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 23rd November 2019, 09:25 PM   #302
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,463
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Shorter times have been mentioned but I don't know how well referenced these were. The 90 seconds was from an expert.

Yep. I've seen reference to 45 seconds, but that seems like a fairly extreme low-ball outlier. And, as I've mentioned before, the defence's own expert in this trial put the number at 3-5 minutes!

However, I've referenced the 45s number as a conservative basis for my arguments here, primarily because even this apparently extreme-low estimate is more than enough time upon which to base my argument. I invite anyone within this thread to look at their watch or clock with a second hand, and count out 45 seconds. It takes a surprising length of time to count that out. And that's the extreme minimum time that the man in this case MUST have been continuing to choke Millane after she lost consciousness, became limp, became unresponsive, and closed her eyes.

When one considers that, then (IMO) it becomes impossible to believe that this was simply an accident or some form of negligence. If the objective was nothing more than consensual erotic asphyxiation, it's (IMO, again) impossible to believe that this man would not have removed his choke grip within seconds of observing Millane become limp and clearly unconscious. Yet instead of doint that, he actually must have contined to choke Millane's lifeless body for this bare minimum of 45 seconds longer (and most likely well over a minute longer).

To me - and, it would appear, to the jury in this trial - his act of continuing to choke an unconscious Millane for this extended additional time period can only be compatible with intent on his part to seriously injure Millane at the very least. And since she actually ended up being killed by his hand, this translates into his guilt of her 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 23rd November 2019, 09:30 PM   #303
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,463
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
So what is bruising explanation for only 1 side of neck?


As I told you, I've already addressed this explicitly in a previous post.

But to assist you in a search for my relevant post, I'll supply you with some appropriate search terms (and who knows, you may well even be able to figure out my answer simply from those search terms...). Here are the search terms:

"Man with large and strong hands"
"Smaller woman with relatively slender neck"
"Man able to choke woman using just one hand on one side of woman's neck"
"Carotid artery constriction"
"Interruption of blood supply to brain"
"Not constriction of breathing (i.e. not blocking of trachea)"
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 23rd November 2019, 10:24 PM   #304
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
London John.

If you have also responded to the 3 links re 'breath play' I can't find it now. All 3 of those mentions death the possibility of death following in seconds. The following link contains detail of when pressure to the neck may bring instant death and Rolfe has given the shortest time found in a British case as 90 seconds. The difference between what the 2 trial pathologists said is continued strangling whereas the following refers to instant unconsciousness - something which was covered at the trial, and says death would be immediate (not mentioned at trial as far as I know.)

As for the photos, Defence Counsel was seen on the news saying (rather weakly, if he was indeed conceding the point, the news clip was brief) that the Google search happened when Grace was alive. Certainly not a strong point. Probably leaving only lack of clarity around the amount of time of pressure on the neck as the single question and the psychological, psychiatric condition of the now convicted man awareness as to how he dealt with that, but only if there was a strengthened argument that it may have been accidental rather than reckless.
He may be a complete idiot, a liar, fantasist and so on - but in the general circumstances if the Jury did not hear that death may have been instantaneous, within a few seconds, or even up to 90 seconds because of the type of the arguably consented pressure applied, he didn't have a fair trial.
I see you have made other responses which I shall look at now.

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=...death.&f=false
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 23rd November 2019, 10:40 PM   #305
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yep. I've seen reference to 45 seconds, but that seems like a fairly extreme low-ball outlier. And, as I've mentioned before, the defence's own expert in this trial put the number at 3-5 minutes!

However, I've referenced the 45s number as a conservative basis for my arguments here, primarily because even this apparently extreme-low estimate is more than enough time upon which to base my argument. I invite anyone within this thread to look at their watch or clock with a second hand, and count out 45 seconds. It takes a surprising length of time to count that out. And that's the extreme minimum time that the man in this case MUST have been continuing to choke Millane after she lost consciousness, became limp, became unresponsive, and closed her eyes.

When one considers that, then (IMO) it becomes impossible to believe that this was simply an accident or some form of negligence. If the objective was nothing more than consensual erotic asphyxiation, it's (IMO, again) impossible to believe that this man would not have removed his choke grip within seconds of observing Millane become limp and clearly unconscious. Yet instead of doint that, he actually must have contined to choke Millane's lifeless body for this bare minimum of 45 seconds longer (and most likely well over a minute longer).

To me - and, it would appear, to the jury in this trial - his act of continuing to choke an unconscious Millane for this extended additional time period can only be compatible with intent on his part to seriously injure Millane at the very least. And since she actually ended up being killed by his hand, this translates into his guilt of her murder.
"However, I've referenced the 45s number as a conservative basis for my arguments here, primarily because even this apparently extreme-low estimate is more than enough time upon which to base my argument. I invite anyone within this thread to look at their watch or clock with a second hand, and count out 45 seconds. It takes a surprising length of time to count that out. And that's the extreme minimum time that the man in this case MUST have been continuing to choke Millane after she lost consciousness, became limp, became unresponsive, and closed her eyes."

Agree on that time and wrote earlier about my doubts of being able to hold my breath underwater for a minute.
I'm guessing here and have no reference but wouldn't the point of 'breath play' be closing the eyes to 'enjoy it'.
Losing consciousness because of a changed grip might have rendered her immediately unconscious when pressure was reapplied. I don't think this 'breath play' is a fine art particularly not between a drunk couple - if unconscious she makes no signal (had they agreed on 1.) This could be explained by lack of fingernail DNA as she fought for breath.
This was something the 'sex expert' may have given evidence about - but haven't read that she did - duration of pressure, how many times a couple might go through individual applications of neck pressure and so on.
On this point there is likely to be papers on the incidence of fingernail DNA, or broken fingernails related to deceased persons killed by strangling.
I was able to read that there are often other injuries - which is not the case here.
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 23rd November 2019, 11:05 PM   #306
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
As I told you, I've already addressed this explicitly in a previous post.

But to assist you in a search for my relevant post, I'll supply you with some appropriate search terms (and who knows, you may well even be able to figure out my answer simply from those search terms...). Here are the search terms:

"Man with large and strong hands"
"Smaller woman with relatively slender neck"
"Man able to choke woman using just one hand on one side of woman's neck"
"Carotid artery constriction"
"Interruption of blood supply to brain"
"Not constriction of breathing (i.e. not blocking of trachea)"
So these are searches into deaths where only one side of the neck is damaged?
Man with large strong hands applies pressure from both sides.
Woman with relatively slender neck still needs pressure from both sides.
Man able to strangle with 1 hand still leaves bruising from 4 fingers on 1 side and from a thumb on the other.
Can't see how the other 3 apply or how like the first 3 would cause internal bruising on only 1 side of the neck.

A forearm across the front or the side of the neck, in the way a person may be 'throttled' from behind - doesn't fit 'breath play' but doesn't have to I suppose although that part of the evidence generally accepted.
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 24th November 2019, 12:40 AM   #307
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,177
I guess she must not have been strangled then?

I am struggling to see what the point of this is.
Matthew Best 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 24th November 2019, 01:04 AM   #308
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,359
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
I guess she must not have been strangled then?

I am struggling to see what the point of this is.
The point will eternally be whether this is murder.
All similar cases in the UK delivered verdicts of culpable homicide or manslaughter.

A murder conviction sticks enduringly, and this may be an injustice, if there is in fact reasonable doubt that a drunken male intentionally killed a drunken female who had a history of engaging in risk of this type.
Witness one described an experience that was exemplary. The appeal court included her ability to testify. Witness 2 described an experience where she lay motionless, reliving her life and expecting to die.
These witnesses were allowed by Mark Cooper presumably to allow any jury to focus without being burdened by multiple inputs.
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 24th November 2019, 01:37 AM   #309
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,177
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The point will eternally be whether this is murder.
All similar cases in the UK delivered verdicts of culpable homicide or manslaughter.

A murder conviction sticks enduringly, and this may be an injustice, if there is in fact reasonable doubt that a drunken male intentionally killed a drunken female who had a history of engaging in risk of this type.
Witness one described an experience that was exemplary. The appeal court included her ability to testify. Witness 2 described an experience where she lay motionless, reliving her life and expecting to die.
These witnesses were allowed by Mark Cooper presumably to allow any jury to focus without being burdened by multiple inputs.
Cite needed for the highlighted.
Matthew Best 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 24th November 2019, 01:45 AM   #310
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,359
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Cite needed for the highlighted.
If you study the cases cited in this link, which was posted upthread, you will see my point substantiated. There are many murder convictions and life sentences, but they are all manifestly appropriate, the throttling without aggravating injuries all lead to convictions that are not murder.

https://wecantconsenttothis.uk/thewomen
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 24th November 2019, 02:05 AM   #311
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,972
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
I guess she must not have been strangled then?

I am struggling to see what the point of this is.
Same here.

Nobody opposing the verdict have so far addressed the point that the jury quickly and unanimously found the murderer guilty. There must be a conspiracy in place. Please explain fixit and Samson. How has this miscarriage of justice conspiracy come about?
__________________
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 24th November 2019, 03:04 AM   #312
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,177
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
If you study the cases cited in this link, which was posted upthread, you will see my point substantiated. There are many murder convictions and life sentences, but they are all manifestly appropriate, the throttling without aggravating injuries all lead to convictions that are not murder.

https://wecantconsenttothis.uk/thewomen
Leslie Potter?

Megan Bills?

Hannah Dorans?

India Chipchase?

Katie Locke?

Lee Hendry?

And I'm only half way down the page, and it's already too depressing to continue.

All of these cases have the perpetrator found guilty of murder in similar cases to Millane. What am I not seeing here?
Matthew Best 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 24th November 2019, 03:11 AM   #313
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
If you study the cases cited in this link, which was posted upthread, you will see my point substantiated. There are many murder convictions and life sentences, but they are all manifestly appropriate, the throttling without aggravating injuries all lead to convictions that are not murder.

https://wecantconsenttothis.uk/thewomen
...scrolling down the list and the very second name on the list is Grace Millane.

This is obviously not a cite that "All similar cases in the UK delivered verdicts of culpable homicide or manslaughter." Grace Millane wasn't a case in the UK and it didn't deliver a verdict of culpable homicide or manslaughter. And scrolling through the first few cases there were cases in the UK that were similar and resulted in murder convictions which surely you would have to admit completely destroys your claim?

The cite you used actually showed 59 examples of UK women killed and many more injured in claimed “consensual” violence." Your cite doesn't make any claim to represent "all similar cases in the UK."

TLDR: your claim is not substantiated. Not even close.
banquetbear 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 24th November 2019, 03:56 AM   #314
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,177
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Same here.

Nobody opposing the verdict have so far addressed the point that the jury quickly and unanimously found the murderer guilty. There must be a conspiracy in place. Please explain fixit and Samson. How has this miscarriage of justice conspiracy come about?
But this isn't helpful either. Juries have been known to make mistakes, so just blindly pointing to a verdict and saying "there!" means nothing.
Matthew Best 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 24th November 2019, 04:44 AM   #315
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 20,743
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
This guy seems a hazard, and in need of constraint, whether or not a murder rap is the appropriate sanction. But the level of hysteria in NZ knows no bounds. For example 10 years ago there was a case where an ex-boyfriend of a 22 year old talked his way past her mother and into her bedroom, and stabbed her 216 times to death. He then used the defence of provocation, and was allowed to take the stand for two days to justify the obvious murder. Unsurprisingly this failed and he is doing 18 years wop.
Yet here is a well meaning female journalist saying

Ten years ago, there was another trial about the death of a young woman, killed by a man, which felt just like this one.

Sophie Elliot, 22, was stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend Clayton Weatherston just as she was about to move cities and start a new life. Weatherston, a narcissist, argued Sophie had "provoked" him into killing her, allowing the defence to, effectively, put Sophie's character on trial.

The case resonates for two reasons. One, it has also felt like Grace - not the accused - was the one on trial. Her personal life has been exploited, her motivations questioned, her most intimate moments spilled to the court. Secondly, the Elliot case also showed a fundamental misunderstanding by a patriarchal society about the way in which women run their lives.


During the trial over Sophie's death, the defence questioned, why, if Weatherston treated Sophie so badly, did she continue to stay with him? And, by painting her as undermining and nasty, they implied she somehow played a part in her own murder.

In reality, Sophie died because she said "no". She broke up with Weatherston, rejected him.
(the link is behind a paywall so no point posting)

The reality is New Zealand journalists use only local cases to illustrate their points, and miss the 30 odd women who have died in similar cases to Grace Millane in the UK.

In simple terms game theory says be very wary, don't leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition. It is clear that Grace Millane did but Sophie Elliott did not, and describing the cases as similar is ridiculous and demeaning to common sense.
The first example at first sight, seems to have little to do with Game Theory, which presumes more than one 'player'. The preconditions are that you each have to make a decision but you do not know what the other/s will decide and can only guess at. So, the theory goes, each 'player' as it were makes a decision that is optimal for himself.

So say, you have someone looking for BDSM thrills. Say, this is a woman, as they will be most vulnerable by having sex with a stranger (or could easily be male, if a gay relationship is sought after). She will be optimising her thrills by putting herself in great danger by ultimately (a) putting her trust in a complete stranger, (b) going to his room in a seedy hotel on the first date, (c) allow him to get her blind drunk and (d) allowing him to squeeze her neck to the point of unconsciousness, having drunkenly chatted together about her previous experiences and desires.

For the other player, in this case, the man, here he has hit lucky: he has found a woman who has put her complete trust in him, even to the extent she leaves her handbag behind when she goes to the loo for him to rummage through.

Her optimal outcome in going through with her decision that fatal night is experiencing the most intense sex (although how alcohol helps this, don't ask) and coming out alive at the end of it, and possibly in a continuing relationship with 'an oil company manager' [sic], and young and good-looking with it.

For him, his optimal outcome is that he has successfully fooled someone into believing him and trusting him! (Note: his second date that day gave him the bum's rush and said she never wanted to see him again, having seen right through him, as did his previous roommates who made him leave.) He gets her drunk, gets her into his room. The ultimate price for believing and trusting a con man? Well, he is not going to take his hands away from her throat - the sucker! - and if he can get away with murder then he is the ultimate con-merchant.

The other case is just simply a woman whose optimal outcome (strategy) was to get the **** away from this creep. His was to stop her. That he did but they both lost, as she didn't foresee he would force his way into her home nor that by stabbing her to death he had lost her anyway, not to mention his freedom. Had she known what his strategy was going to be she would have made herself safe by confiding her fears of his violence to her mother.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

Last edited by Vixen; 24th November 2019 at 04:48 AM.
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 24th November 2019, 05:13 AM   #316
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,972
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
But this isn't helpful either. Juries have been known to make mistakes, so just blindly pointing to a verdict and saying "there!" means nothing.
I'm not. I'm saying that this verdict is safe.
__________________
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 24th November 2019, 05:22 AM   #317
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,177
I agree with you. But saying the verdict is safe, and then pointing to the jury's decision as evidence for that is begging the question.
Matthew Best 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 24th November 2019, 05:40 AM   #318
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,463
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
London John.

If you have also responded to the 3 links re 'breath play' I can't find it now. All 3 of those mentions death the possibility of death following in seconds. The following link contains detail of when pressure to the neck may bring instant death and Rolfe has given the shortest time found in a British case as 90 seconds. The difference between what the 2 trial pathologists said is continued strangling whereas the following refers to instant unconsciousness - something which was covered at the trial, and says death would be immediate (not mentioned at trial as far as I know.)


Firstly, I can't open this latest link, so I cannot tell what it may or may not claim, and how reliable it is as a source. But judging by the quality of your previous links on this subject, I won't be holding my breath (pun intended).

Secondly, if you're referring to the three links in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post12901972

...then I seriously have to question a) your research methodology and b) your opinion on what qualifies as credible evidence. One of those links is from a (non-medical) article in Cosmopolitan Magazine(!), another is from an agony-aunt column in a lifestyle magazine(!!), and the third is indeed at least a medical-related site. But that third link makes no reference whatsoever to this "death can occur in mere seconds from choking" claim you're trying to support.

All the actual real medical evidence points to the fact that while it's feasible to choke someone into unconsciousness within a matter of seconds, you then need to carry on choking the person for a considerable period longer for death to occur. And indeed that was what was introduced - by both sides - during this man's trial.

I dunno - maybe you can write to the man's lawyers and recommend they use that Cosmopolitan Magazine article in their appeal submission.......
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 24th November 2019, 05:48 AM   #319
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 16,463
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
I agree with you. But saying the verdict is safe, and then pointing to the jury's decision as evidence for that is begging the question.


Indeed.

And of course in a case such as this there can never be empirical "right" or "wrong" - given that this man confessed to nothing and there's no other direct* evidence of any kind. All that is ever possible is an objective, rational, intelligent analysis of the available evidence, leading to a set of inferences and ultimately to a deduction about either what must have happened, what might have happened, or what definitely could not have happened.

And in this case, I strongly submit that such an exercise leads to only one unequivocal deduction: that a) this man must have had the intent to at least seriously injure Millane on account of the very long period he must have continued choking her after she fell unconscious, b) this man caused the death of Millane from choking her, and c) this man's actions immediately after Millane's death and in the ensuing 36 hours are only compatible with guilt. And this combined deduction can only lead to a finding of murder.


* ETA: I'm making an assumption that people reading this post know what is meant by "direct evidence" in the context of a criminal trial.

Last edited by LondonJohn; 24th November 2019 at 05:49 AM.
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 24th November 2019, 09:48 AM   #320
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Firstly, I can't open this latest link, so I cannot tell what it may or may not claim, and how reliable it is as a source. But judging by the quality of your previous links on this subject, I won't be holding my breath (pun intended).

Secondly, if you're referring to the three links in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post12901972

...then I seriously have to question a) your research methodology and b) your opinion on what qualifies as credible evidence. One of those links is from a (non-medical) article in Cosmopolitan Magazine(!), another is from an agony-aunt column in a lifestyle magazine(!!), and the third is indeed at least a medical-related site. But that third link makes no reference whatsoever to this "death can occur in mere seconds from choking" claim you're trying to support.

All the actual real medical evidence points to the fact that while it's feasible to choke someone into unconsciousness within a matter of seconds, you then need to carry on choking the person for a considerable period longer for death to occur. And indeed that was what was introduced - by both sides - during this man's trial.

I dunno - maybe you can write to the man's lawyers and recommend they use that Cosmopolitan Magazine article in their appeal submission.......
]

The book is by Bernard Knight: Lawyers Guide to Forensic Medicine, 2nd Edition

His qualifications are CBE, MD, DSc(Hons), LLD (Hons), BCh, MRCP, FRC Paten Dip Med Jun

Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.


If you can read I noted the quality of the 3 links, and commented that the 3rd had more credibility than the first 2. On the other Knight has published papers to his name.

Go to pages 213-214 under heading Carotid Sinus Pressure:
'This is a common source of death in pressure on the neck, especially in manual strangulation, and can occur INSTANTLY when the neck is gripped.'

Hope that is clear enough for you. Take your time with it. Then you might like to attempt a proper explanation as to the dangers of recovery from shallow breathing if pressure is again replied as in 'breath play.' That will leave only an explanation for bruising on one side of the neck which none of your 6 point list earlier provided, covered.

Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Last edited by zooterkin; 26th November 2019 at 04:24 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
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 03:52 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.