Grace Millane
-
@nzzp said in Grace Millane:
@jegga said in Grace Millane:
I’m sure most people have parts of their life they’d rather keep private
Imagine if your internet history was made public in death. Fark that, but that's basically what she's getting.
Mine ? @Catogrande has mentioned it a few times. I hope I’m not alive if it’s ever made public.
-
@jegga said in Grace Millane:
@nzzp said in Grace Millane:
@jegga said in Grace Millane:
I’m sure most people have parts of their life they’d rather keep private
Imagine if your internet history was made public in death. Fark that, but that's basically what she's getting.
Mine ? @Catogrande has mentioned it a few times. I hope I’m not alive if it’s ever made public.
Mine or yours? Probably doesn't really matter.
-
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@jegga said in Grace Millane:
.
The PM ... well intended but misguided ...Inconceivable
-
@booboo said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@jegga said in Grace Millane:
.
The PM ... well intended but misguided ...Inconceivable
True.
I'd prefer that to poorly intended and misguided though.Lots of lessons being learned around this one.
-
@Crucial apparently the 2 witnesses they called who were on the BDSM app she was on, never met with her.
-
Funny how that changes everything. BDSM is dodgy as all hell especially with young folk and especially with strangers One of my first serious gf's was into the whole asphyxiation thing, I soon found out she didn't have a 'stop' switch either freaked me out, something exciting about being that close to death? I distinctly remember telling myself do not ever try this shit while drunk.
-
Wow. Defence has finished already. Their case was that everything done in the room was normal within the bounds of consensual sex and that she was open to BDSM.
They have totally ignored his behaviour except to state that it was explainable by him panicking and not wanting to get the blame.
-
@taniwharugby said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial apparently the 2 witnesses they called who were on the BDSM app she was on, never met with her.
There was evidence that she may have met one i.e.arrangements were made
-
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
Wow. Defence has finished already. Their case was that everything done in the room was normal within the bounds of consensual sex and that she was open to BDSM.
They have totally ignored his behaviour except to state that it was explainable by him panicking and not wanting to get the blame.
You can't justify all the bad shit he did so I guess they figure why dredge it up and cloud the main issue
-
It's not looking flash for the prosecution, but apparently she had heard of safe words (and similar options), so the defense can't easily rely on inexperience of not having a safe word and just continuing without noticing anything - might be the pathway to showing recklessness and therefore murder. The act that caused death was intentional (in that they were engaging in choking/neck pressure deliberately), so mens rea is there in that sense, but the prosecution has to convince the jury that precautions should have been taken, but weren't, and therefore that the choking was illegal at a level of recklessness to be murder. Alternatively, they have to convince the jury that he intended to cause death - an argument along the lines of "she died when he deliberately choked her, it looks like murder because it is, as shown by the physical evidence, and look at all these inconsistencies in his story".
Alcohol tends to be difficult to use as a mitigating factor - courts and juries have historically been reluctant to buy it as a defence to much. Here, it lessens inhibitions and judgement so could be a mitigating factor in that sense, but on the other hand, that adds to the recklessness narrative.
@Virgil I think manslaughter could be an option if the jury decides the choking wasn't intended to cause death or reckless, but was illegal - being drunk might play into that.
Since someone asked, drink driving causing death is below manslaughter in the hierarchy, but not that common as a charge any more because police have tended to prosecute for manslaughter instead in most instances on the basic grounds that drink driving is illegal and a deliberate act, and therefore it's culpable homicide which is not murder.
-
Looking a bit stronger for the opposition when they outline their case in the summing up.
Basically they maintain (supported by their witnesses) a situation of 'reckless intent'
The Crown doesn't have to prove the defendant intended to kill Grace Millane," he begins.
"I want to make a few points clear at the outset in the hope they might carry through with you. There is more than one method by which a verdict of murder may be returned."
"You may form the view that he didn't intend to kill Grace - and i'll be asking you to consider that very seriously - but in the end, the Crown only has to prove [beyond a reasonable doubt] "reckless intent".
"That is that the defendant knew he was causing harm that might cause death, he was aware of that risk, and he took it, and as a result of taking that risk, death occurred.
"That is reckless intent, conscious risk taking. You can kill someone by conscious risk taking and in this country that is murder," he tells the jury.
"So when I speak of the recklessness of the defendant, if you are satisfied you knew he was doing something that may be likely to cause harm, he appreciated that risk and took it - then he is guilty of murder.
They have pointed to his 'manner' in lying that is inconsistent with someone panicking and trying to avoid blame and singled out the lack of difference between his proven lies and the story he gave about the death. Pointed out that he took photos of her while dead as inconsistent with someone worried about blame for something they didn't do.
Also have declared that he would have had to have continued strangulation long after she went limp or unconscious to kill her. (this is the scientific opinion that the defence has tried to counter.
So basically are saying that while she may have asked for asphyxiation as part of sex he took the opportunity to go further at the spur of the moment then tried to work out how to deal with the situation afterwards.
-
*"That is that the defendant knew he was causing harm that might cause death, he was aware of that risk, and he took it, and as a result of taking that risk, death occurred.
"That is reckless intent, conscious risk taking. You can kill someone by conscious risk taking and in this country that is murder," he tells the jury*
That's interesting given the context of the case - if anyone is participating in consenting BDSM, with all the checks/balances (safe words etc), then you are still subject to a possible murder charge if it goes wrong? Rather than a manslaughter/accidental death charge? Acknowledging that this is the edge case of things going as wrong as possible.
Edit - meant to ask about impaired decision making also - if they both were pissed then what? the above clarification implies conscious decision-making and actions. So his state of inebriation or whatever has no bearing?
-
@Paekakboyz said in Grace Millane:
*"That is that the defendant knew he was causing harm that might cause death, he was aware of that risk, and he took it, and as a result of taking that risk, death occurred.
"That is reckless intent, conscious risk taking. You can kill someone by conscious risk taking and in this country that is murder," he tells the jury*
That's interesting given the context of the case - if anyone is participating in consenting BDSM, with all the checks/balances (safe words etc), then you are still subject to a possible murder charge if it goes wrong? Rather than a manslaughter/accidental death charge? Acknowledging that this is the edge case of things going as wrong as possible.
Edit - meant to ask about impaired decision making also - if they both were pissed then what? the above clarification implies conscious decision-making and actions. So his state of inebriation or whatever has no bearing?
This is where the judge comes in. To clarify all of that (I hope)
-
@Crucial when I was on Jury service earlier this year, the Judge explained things well in his summary and they give you like a 'cheat sheet' where it spells things out clearly for the jury on the requirements under the law and for the charges.
My understanding was this had become standard practice in NZ Courts?
-
@Paekakboyz People can't consent to death (Crimes Act) and the common law around consenting to violence has the threshold at actual harm (injury or wounding). So, you can consent to acts which normally be assault in sports e.g. boxing, martial arts, rugby etc., but you would normally be unable to consent to anything more serious unless there is a public interest in allowing consent e.g. surgery which often involves wounding and administering dangerous substances, but the public interest is in allowing it rather than not.
In terms of BDSM, some is probably fine with safe words etc but if someone dies during it and the activity is one in which is death could reasonably be seen as possible, consent is no defence. Whether murder or manslaughter probably depends on the specifics of the incident - keep choking, hard to defend, hit them with something and they die from a punctured lung, maybe just manslaughter. In the case of injuries, the police may not bother if nobody makes a formal complaint, but if it's a serious beating that causes broken bones etc, and the hospital/doctor reports it, it could well result in criminal charges.
-
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@Godder the consent issue reminds me of the Peter Plumley Walker case. Chisnell got convicted but i can't recall if it was murder
Chignell (there was a bloke Chisnall who did something recently). I think she was convicted of murder of Plumley Walker, then it was appealed - jury undecided, then acquitted of murder. 3 trials. I remember it because it kept going backwards.
-
@Snowy said in Grace Millane:
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@Godder the consent issue reminds me of the Peter Plumley Walker case. Chisnell got convicted but i can't recall if it was murder
Chignell (there was a bloke Chisnall who did something recently). I think she was convicted of murder of Plumley Walker, then it was appealed - jury undecided, then acquitted of murder. 3 trials. I remember it because it kept going backwards.
So did she end up convicted of anything?
