Grace Millane
-
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@Mokey said in Grace Millane:
@Godder If she was drunk (as the tox report confirmed) does that impact the 'consensual sex act' defence? Would have thought someone being impaired would negate the ability to consent?
For me that is a strong point. Aren't we trying to teach people about what consent really means? Being drunk and not saying no does not equate to saying yes.
She might have consented to sex but not to being choked . Chances are probably never asked about the choking anyway
-
@jegga said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@Mokey said in Grace Millane:
@Godder If she was drunk (as the tox report confirmed) does that impact the 'consensual sex act' defence? Would have thought someone being impaired would negate the ability to consent?
For me that is a strong point. Aren't we trying to teach people about what consent really means? Being drunk and not saying no does not equate to saying yes.
She might have consented to sex but not to being choked . Chances are probably never asked about the choking anyway
The other injuries would suggest she was forcibly restrained against her will and ultimately died. Doesnt sound consensual
-
Reading what is going on this morning in court, this guy deserves locking up simply for being an idiot of the highest degree.
The bullshit he spun to the cops and ever changing stories are the most ridiculous bunch of lies since Trump explained to Melania about not cheating.
Did he not even think that the hotel would have cameras? -
@Mokey correct, although the legal test is high, but the charges don't include sexual assault or sexual violation (rape), so it's hard to say that lack of consent to sexual activity is part of the prosecution case here.
The wording in legislation is "A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is so affected by alcohol or some other drug that he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent to the activity."
If that was the case, the charges would probably include more than murder which suggests that the prosecution are pushing on the idea that the choking wasn't sexual activity, and was instead intended to cause death. ("sexual activity" is defined as either sexual connection aka sex, or anything that would be indecent assault without consent)
-
@canefan Haven't read all the case notes, but that's a possibility. Would be a theory that fits the evidence and post-death actions - not part of the plan for the evening (so not premeditated in that respect), but he lost his temper and killed her at some point, and then he suddenly had to deal with a body, hence the internet searches etc.
Another factor that makes me think consent to sexual activity and therefore rape are not part of the prosecution case is that if she died during a rape due to strangulation, it would come under one of the other definitions of murder i.e. "if he or she by any means wilfully stops the breath of any person for any of the purposes aforesaid, and death ensues from such stopping of breath." (the "purposes aforesaid" include rape).
This is part of what is often called the "felony-murder" rule i.e. if a victim dies during the commission of a serious offence due to grievous bodily injury, adminstration of a stupefying or overpowering thing (e.g. drugs, gas etc), or due to wilfully stopping their breath, it may be murder even if death was not intended or foreseen.
-
The Crown has finished presenting its case and seems to be relying on the fact that the accused continually lied and went to great lengths to try and cover up what was done and even during the questioning where he proffered the '50 Shades' alibi he was lying about other aspects.
I guess that because we can't hear her side of the story they are banking on showing that he can't be believed.The omission that I found strange is that he stated that she asked for the rough stuff and that it was something she used to regularly do with a previous boyfriend. No evidence of statement from a previous boyfriend to deny that. Maybe they felt it would not hold much weight anyway if they did?
Defence case to start next week but they are left trying to explain why, even when supposedly 'coming clean' their client continued to lie. He claimed that he took photos before death yet they were after. Claimed that he crashed out and didn't even know she was still in the room yet was busy searching the internet. Claimed that she asked him to do stuff he was unfamiliar with, yet two previous partners have testified otherwise.
At this stage it is still looking like sex act gone wrong but likely instigated by him, not her, and he went too far. Other explanation is the path they haven't gone down as it is even harder to prove, which is that even the sex was against her will and she was trying to get out when he lost control.
His actions afterward can probably be explained better by a psychologist, but to me they ring the narcissist bell. It seems to be all about 'why has this happened to me?'. I would discount much of the actual detail of the behaviour and focus on whether he is credible. Does his version of events stack up when comparing the facts about what is known against the statements he made. The jury is being asked not to believe his story about those few minutes as he keeps proving an inability to tell the truth.
Does reasonable doubt remain? That is tricky. There is certainly doubt. It (those few minutes) COULD have happened the way he described, but is it reasonable to think that is the one thing he is telling the truth on?
-
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
The Crown has finished presenting its case and seems to be relying on the fact that the accused continually lied and went to great lengths to try and cover up what was done and even during the questioning where he proffered the '50 Shades' alibi he was lying about other aspects.
I guess that because we can't hear her side of the story they are banking on showing that he can't be believed.The omission that I found strange is that he stated that she asked for the rough stuff and that it was something she used to regularly do with a previous boyfriend. No evidence of statement from a previous boyfriend to deny that. Maybe they felt it would not hold much weight anyway if they did?
Defence case to start next week but they are left trying to explain why, even when supposedly 'coming clean' their client continued to lie. He claimed that he took photos before death yet they were after. Claimed that he crashed out and didn't even know she was still in the room yet was busy searching the internet. Claimed that she asked him to do stuff he was unfamiliar with, yet two previous partners have testified otherwise.
At this stage it is still looking like sex act gone wrong but likely instigated by him, not her, and he went too far. Other explanation is the path they haven't gone down as it is even harder to prove, which is that even the sex was against her will and she was trying to get out when he lost control.
His actions afterward can probably be explained better by a psychologist, but to me they ring the narcissist bell. It seems to be all about 'why has this happened to me?'. I would discount much of the actual detail of the behaviour and focus on whether he is credible. Does his version of events stack up when comparing the facts about what is known against the statements he made. The jury is being asked not to believe his story about those few minutes as he keeps proving an inability to tell the truth.
Does reasonable doubt remain? That is tricky. There is certainly doubt. It (those few minutes) COULD have happened the way he described, but is it reasonable to think that is the one thing he is telling the truth on?
@Snowy wants you on his jury , “ it’s entirely possible he didn’t know anything about all the bodies in his backyard and a lightning strike simultaneously skinned and cooked them all”.
-
-
@Virgil said in Grace Millane:
Given his penchant for rough sex and choking he’s gonna be a hit in prison..
Thought you were talking about me for minute there, then heard wive's voice saying "it's not all about you you know". Skinning and eating are more my thing apparently anyway.
-
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
he omission that I found strange is that he stated that she asked for the rough stuff and that it was something she used to regularly do with a previous boyfriend. No evidence of statement from a previous boyfriend to deny that. Maybe they felt it would not hold much weight anyway if they did?
given the prosecution have used testimony from women he had been with to prove his pattern behaviour, maybe this is where the defence will go to show hers (assuming there is some, if not, would seem strange the prosecution wouldn't get testimony form an ex or exes)
-
If she had regularly practiced elements of BDSM in the safety of a previous relationship (trust, boundaries, consent etc) I find it less plausible that she would agree to hardcore things like choking with some foreign dude she just met. That they discussed it, and she was drunk and he decided to go at it, because his narcissistic self thought I want to do this, and I deserve what previous guy got...possibly.
-
@Mokey while that may be true, I suspect most people that havent done that kind of stuff (or researched it for books...) would probably be easily lead to believe that if she was into it in previous relationships, that is normal 'sexual behaviour' for her.
-
@taniwharugby said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
he omission that I found strange is that he stated that she asked for the rough stuff and that it was something she used to regularly do with a previous boyfriend. No evidence of statement from a previous boyfriend to deny that. Maybe they felt it would not hold much weight anyway if they did?
given the prosecution have used testimony from women he had been with to prove his pattern behaviour, maybe this is where the defence will go to show hers (assuming there is some, if not, would seem strange the prosecution wouldn't get testimony form an ex or exes)
Maybe they were happy this could be squashed with ease and are leaving it if it comes up in the defence case? Seems odd
-
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@taniwharugby said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
he omission that I found strange is that he stated that she asked for the rough stuff and that it was something she used to regularly do with a previous boyfriend. No evidence of statement from a previous boyfriend to deny that. Maybe they felt it would not hold much weight anyway if they did?
given the prosecution have used testimony from women he had been with to prove his pattern behaviour, maybe this is where the defence will go to show hers (assuming there is some, if not, would seem strange the prosecution wouldn't get testimony form an ex or exes)
Maybe they were happy this could be squashed with ease and are leaving it if it comes up in the defence case? Seems odd
I guess that it would open a big mess of evidence that would certainly be unfair on the victim and her parents. There was no indication or confirmation of the name of this ex, so any evidence from an ex boyfriend would have to be proved as being the one she was talking about. Also could be argued that the story about a previous partner was made up as an 'excuse' on why she wanted to do those things. Not an easy path although I would still have thought that some kind of witness on her sexual past would have been relevant given that the accused's past has been explored.
-
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
I guess that it would open a big mess of evidence that would certainly be unfair on the victim and her parents.
and the pulling apart the reputation of victims has been getting alot of media in recent times and I believe there is some legislation in for review about how this is able to be done??
-
Defence has given opening statements that indicate that they will be exploring her sexual history. At least they have gone to great pains to explain that nothing will be as a judgement of her, just to support the consensual angle.
They also tried to tell the jury that they couldn't convict on murder without proof of intent. The judge had to make these comments after...Justice Simon Moore addresses the jury after the defence's opening statement.
*"In my role, as the judge of law, it will be for me to direct you on what the law is," he tells the jury.
Defence lawyer Ron Mansfield touched on "murderous intent" in his opening but the court heard there were two ways of getting to murder in this case.
The first is intention or deliberate causing of death, he says.
"There is another definition: The causing of actual bodily injury which is known could well cause death, if the person causing the injury is reckless, whether death ensures or not," he said.
"You can get to murder by either of those two routes. I wanted to raise this so when you are aware, murder can involve notions of recklessness as well."
Justice Moore says when he sums up the case, that notion will be put "in black and white for you, for you to see what it really means in the context of this case".*
This is all going to come down to whether his story (that she was the one that asked for the strangulation and that he followed her instructions) is to be believed.
I am curious though as to the element of alcohol and whether it is reckless to engage in a dangerous act that may cause harm to another while drunk.
For drink driving we have a different charge don't we? Does it fall somewhere between manslaughter and murder because it is difficult to prove murder if you decide to drive drunk and kill someone? -
After only one day of the defence I am wondering how this case even came to being tested on a murder charge.
The big key, which the prosecution quite obviously ignored is that Grace was very much into BDSM, had sign ons to a number of BDSM boards/sites and had told friends how she liked playing like that.
Now it could still be that he got carried away, or that the pissed state they were in meant that they didn't have the control over a dangerous act, but the argument that this was instigated by him is rapidly vanishing. He may well have lied about everything else and we still will never know exactly what happened but the story that she asked him to get rough and use asphyxiation is not only supported but likely.
Surely the investigators/prosecutors must have known all of this?
I can see now why name suppression was successfully argued. If this does turn out to be misadventure then casting him as a murderer would be unfair. Most certainly though, he should be exposed afterwards for despicably trying to cover things up and causing even more pain to her family.A similar high profile example in the UK (of death not cover up) was the guy convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence when he took his date out on a speedboat on the Thames late at night after they had both got hammered. He crashed the boat and she died. At the time I actually thought that there was a lack of acknowledgement in that case for her part in proceedings. She was a willing (if drunk) party to getting on the boat. She wasn't forced into the situation or so drunk that she couldn't have assessed the risk herself. He did act recklessly though once on the boat by going too fast and capsizing.
The reason I make the comparison is that both parties were willing, both parties were drunk, they took a risk and he then increased that risk. There was no thought of a murder charge.Maybe the prosecution here are deliberately aiming high to test and show that a higher charge was tested in fairness?
I know some here will come up with a conspiracy theory of govt pressure but to be fair when a young women goes missing and her body is stuffed in a suitcase and buried you are probably obliged to test that her death was deliberate or through the accused knowing he was at fault. -
@Crucial the fact that she either instigated it or at least was a willing participant would seem to blow murder out of the water. He still engaged in reckless behavior that led to her death and, as you mentioned he did a bunch of terrible stuff afterwards, it will be interesting to see what they can make stick
