Grace Millane
-
@hydro11 said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
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.Prosecution have a strong case. Yes, Grace was into BDSM but the accused has had past sexual encounters who say that he took it too far.
The biggest point for me is that even if Grace instigated asphyxiation, the accused likely would have had to choke her for a long time while she had already lost consciousness. The accused can't use being drunk as an excuse although Grace being drunk could explain how she died so quickly. The only thing which saves the defence on this point is that the science is not 100% clear. Simon Stables couldn't say exactly how long he would have had to choke her for.
The defence's best point is that the forensic evidence seems to back up his chain of events.
Overall, it is a toss-up for me whether it meets the reasonable doubt threshold. I would probably go not-guilty of murder but it is very close.
I agree that once the prosecution’s case was laid out as a whole it made much more sense.
I am also very close, which in itself makes you wonder about reasonable doubt.
His story just doesn’t ring true but that could also be for other reasons not argued out. Does lying make him a murderer? -
The jury is now being talked through the difference between murder and manslaughter, as a part of Justice Simon Moore's address.
“Only if you do not find the accused guilty of murder, do you go on to consider manslaughter,” Moore says to the jury.
"It is only at that point does the issue of consent comes in. Consent is not a defence to murder,”
The defence does not dispute the accused applied pressure to Grace's neck, which resulted in her death, the court is told.
But there is more than one way to commit culpable homicide, or a blame-worthy killing of one person by another, he says.
One definition of murder is the intention to kill.
However, "reckless intent" can also result in murder, the jury is told.
If the accused applied pressure to Grace's neck with the intention of causing injury, knowing his actions could cause death, and carried on regardless - that is also murder, Justice Moore tells the jury.
-
@taniwharugby said in Grace Millane:
and carried on regardless - that is also murder, Justice Moore tells the jury.
Key point possibly and carried on regardless - that is also murder, Justice Moore tells the jury.
-
-
Gee the herald is really flogging this all they can’t aren’t they. If updated daily reports wasn’t enough now we have this special ‘final days’ article. I assume 75% of the feralds ‘journalists’ are working day and night on this story.
What are they going to do when it’s over? -
@Virgil said in Grace Millane:
Gee the herald is really flogging this all they can’t aren’t they. If updated daily reports wasn’t enough now we have this special ‘final days’ article. I assume 75% of the feralds ‘journalists’ are working day and night on this story.
What are they going to do when it’s over?Go back to trawling twitter for trending clickbait that they can cut and paste?
-
I'm really none the wiser at the moment.
There is one piece of presented evidence though that bugs me. The internet searches in the early hours.
The prosecution says he was searching how to dispose of the body (very likely) the defence says they were random (very unlikely).
If searching how to dispose then either she was dead already or (the sinister option) he could see an opportunity to kill someone and blame it on BDSM so was planning.
I am going to discard the second option as it defies logic. Why not kill her and then phone police with concocted story?
That leaves the more likely scenario which is that he knew she was dead.
He says that he didn't know until he woke later. Why, even after admitting killing her, is he holding onto this likely lie? What is the relevance of the timing? What does he know that makes it relevant (but we don't)?
He says he was too drunk to even know she was dead and crashed out in the shower. But then sober enough to randomly type 'hottest fire' and 'Waitakere' into his phone? Just doesn't ring true.That unanswered question has me casting more doubt on the defence than the prosecution but the defence doesn't have to prove itself only the prosecution does.
-
I'd be surprised if they don't appeal.
-
-
@No-Quarter Agree, although that would normally be after sentencing. Guessing he will get life with 10 years non-parole, which is the minimum, unless there is something particularly vicious about it that wasn't apparent from the trial reports.
-
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@Virgil said in Grace Millane:
Guilty!!
All things considered I think it is the right decision. All of the stuff this guy did after the killing were not the actions of a man panicking about an accidental death
I actually think that they could be. Not 'normal' behaviour, sure, but not in the realm of not possible.
The key is 'accidental'. As explained above the expert evidence was that an accident would be very difficult to achieve. Add to that the continued lie about internet searches and the suspicion is that he knew what he had done because at some point he decided to do it (or continue with it) -
@Godder said in Grace Millane:
@No-Quarter Agree, although that would normally be after sentencing. Guessing he will get life with 10 years non-parole, which is the minimum, unless there is something particularly vicious about it that wasn't apparent from the trial reports.
Can someone in the know tell me why it will be Feb before sentencing?
-
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
I'm really none the wiser at the moment.
There is one piece of presented evidence though that bugs me. The internet searches in the early hours.
The prosecution says he was searching how to dispose of the body (very likely) the defence says they were random (very unlikely).
If searching how to dispose then either she was dead already or (the sinister option) he could see an opportunity to kill someone and blame it on BDSM so was planning.
I am going to discard the second option as it defies logic. Why not kill her and then phone police with concocted story?
That leaves the more likely scenario which is that he knew she was dead.
He says that he didn't know until he woke later. Why, even after admitting killing her, is he holding onto this likely lie? What is the relevance of the timing? What does he know that makes it relevant (but we don't)?
He says he was too drunk to even know she was dead and crashed out in the shower. But then sober enough to randomly type 'hottest fire' and 'Waitakere' into his phone? Just doesn't ring true.That unanswered question has me casting more doubt on the defence than the prosecution but the defence doesn't have to prove itself only the prosecution does.
On the news tonight, they said records were taken off his phone. Presumably after Grace died he searched
Waitakere ranges
Hottest fire
Porn
Took photos of her naked body
PornEven vaguely normal behavior for a panic stricken man?
-
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
I'm really none the wiser at the moment.
There is one piece of presented evidence though that bugs me. The internet searches in the early hours.
The prosecution says he was searching how to dispose of the body (very likely) the defence says they were random (very unlikely).
If searching how to dispose then either she was dead already or (the sinister option) he could see an opportunity to kill someone and blame it on BDSM so was planning.
I am going to discard the second option as it defies logic. Why not kill her and then phone police with concocted story?
That leaves the more likely scenario which is that he knew she was dead.
He says that he didn't know until he woke later. Why, even after admitting killing her, is he holding onto this likely lie? What is the relevance of the timing? What does he know that makes it relevant (but we don't)?
He says he was too drunk to even know she was dead and crashed out in the shower. But then sober enough to randomly type 'hottest fire' and 'Waitakere' into his phone? Just doesn't ring true.That unanswered question has me casting more doubt on the defence than the prosecution but the defence doesn't have to prove itself only the prosecution does.
On the news tonight, they said records were taken off his phone. Presumably after Grace died he searched
Waitakere ranges
Hottest fire
Porn
Took photos of her naked body
PornEven vaguely normal behavior for a panic stricken man?
Not at all. Didn't we go through this pages ago? Define 'normal'.
What his actions do though is look consistent with someone that knows they have a dead body and are deciding what to do. The defence said those actions were random and he didn't discover she was dead until later.
That is the bit that beggars belief and if he insists on lying about that then the 'panicked path followed by full disclosure' argument doesn't hold up.
