Found Deceased NEW ZEALAND - Grace Millane, 22, British backpacker, Auckland, 1 Dec 2018 *Arrest* #2

[sunnynz]

Which is interesting, that that is your perception.

Mine however, couldn't be more different.

Up until the point that the defense put previous partners on the stand, from the snippets that have been published, I really thought wow I think I am heavily in the manslaughter outcome. There is way more than reasonable doubt to me that his account has some truth.

Now though, I can't believe a word of it. After learning that so many other men do this, with a light pressure applied briefly, multiple times with multiple women, because 'they (the women) enjoy it', I can't reconcile these accounts with what must have happened to Grace. Now I'm in no doubt that he knew he was murdering her

Yes the seemingly commonplace nature of light choking/throat holding/whatever in sex today definitely works against the accused. If all the ‘kids’ are doing it then people know what works, what’s too much, etc to the point that people aren’t getting accidentally strangled to death left right and centre.

Some of those witnesses seemed utterly pointless. I’d want my money back from the PI.

Grace, good for you getting out there and exploring what you like and taking charge of your own happiness. At such a young age you knew what she wanted and you went for it. Sorry that you came across such a lying on your way.

 

[Sleuthyinvestigator]

I have been following this case, and I think the defence has been very good. Up until the defence this week I thought it was Murder for sure.

But now that I have heard the defence, they have really put forward some strong points.

I know everyone has emotions and have been supporting Grace, but you need to take your bias and emotions out of it and go by facts.

Even though at the time the accused has been a pathological liar, it does not necessarily mean he lies 100% of the time, and that there have been truths in there.

The first good point was how did he know she liked to be choked. This has now been proven to be true, so there must have been a conversation between them in that case.

Now we have also found out that Grace has had some proven rough sex/BDSM fetishes, so once again, unless he met up on those fetish sites, conversations must have been had. It was obviously on her mind as she was visiting fetish apps that day, and as perhaps there weren't many peeps on it, maybe none of them tickled her fancy, but she wanted some BDSM action.

She did have some far out fetishes that she did experience as evidenced on her laptop, that as the accused had mentioned, was quite inexperienced in. Being a little bit violent and on alcohol, his inexperience might have led him to do things a bit more stronger than anticipated. I would also like to know what medications he was on for depression, that was mentioned earlier in the case, as they could have interacted with alcohol. This is no way excusing for what the accused had done. Maybe he had a slight moment of psychotic behaviour at the wrong moment, which in that case would be murder.

I think by hearing from these men she had hooked up with, it portrayed Grace's happy go lucky nature (and I guess risky behaviour), and too be to trusting in strangers, which at times could be exploited.

I think it is hard to prove the intent for murder. Most times strangulation would be due to rape and rejection, but from the CCTV footage she seemed very happy, and the fact that she had a one-night stand the night before, (which once again was a very important piece of the defence, even though a lot of peeps didn't like it as they like to see Grace as a "little angel" (bias emotion) whereas in reality she is a young woman exploring her sexuality (and not judging her by this behaviour)) meant that it would have most likely occurred again and that rejection from Grace would have been unlikely.

 

[jaejae]

Here is a Sky News report about this case:

'Naive and trusting' Grace Millane gave list of fetishes to man on BDSM dating site, court hears

Another report from the Evening Standard:

Millane 'was naive and trusting in the online sex community'

 

[DanceCard]

Justice Simon Moore is clarifying to the jury that murder isn't confined just to someone intentionally killing someone or causing their death. It can also refer to reckless actions that cause bodily injury or death.

Grace Millane murder trial: Live updates as Defence opens case, calls witnesses

Having read recent posts, now seems like a good time to bring this point forward again.
There have been earlier posts on this thread by a poster who is familiar with NZ law who has also highlighted the definition of murder in NZ law.

 

[Sleuthyinvestigator]

Having read recent posts, now seems like a good time to bring this point forward again.
There have been earlier posts on this thread by a poster who is familiar with NZ law who has also highlighted the definition of murder in NZ law.

Good point. Here is an example to think about it. What if a friend is drunk and asks you to punch him for a laugh as a dare. You hit him, but stronger than you thought as you were inebriated and have been working out at a gym for a few months and didnt realise how strong you were, and also they hit their head on the ground and die. That is reckless, but encouraged recklessness. Is that murder or manslaughter.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Good point. Here is an example to think about it. What if a friend is drunk and asks you to punch him for a laugh as a dare. You hit him, but stronger than you thought as you were inebriated and have been working out at a gym for a few months and didnt realise how strong you were, and also they hit their head on the ground and die. That is reckless, but encouraged recklessness. Is that murder or manslaughter.

Can't compare the two and minimize what the accused did. The accused had his hands around her throat or compressed her throat or had something tied around her throat, he continued applying pressure until she became unconscious and died, he felt life leave her body. jmo

 

[mrjitty]

So why is this good for the accused? Grace survived this other date in good health. Or are they trying to paint her as a bad girl who was kinkily having one night stands every night?

If Grace was on tape saying to the defendant “Hey, strangle me to the brink of death” guess what? Still a murder.

I really am freaking amazed this evidence is even allowed.

Probative value = 0

You would not be allowed to introduce this evidence in a rape trial.

 

[mrjitty]

I'm unsure why the hysteria over what the defence are doing. Has no one ever followed a trial before?

Because typically in rape trials, this kind of evidence is not allowed.

But because Grace was murdered, somehow *advertiser censored* shaming evidence is being introduced

This witness has zero probative value. The defence called him only because Grace had a one night stand. He specifically did not engage in any strangulation sex with her.

 

[mrjitty]

The defence’s next witness, who also has name suppression, "matched" with Grace on Whiplr - an app for those interested in BDSM.

The 38-year-old told the jury he never met up with Grace.

His two attempts to contact her by calling her phone, were both rejected by Grace.

"I attempted to make contact with her to meet up but had no response. There were signs there she didn't want to meet up or speak," he said.

Under cross-examination, Crown prosecutor Brian Dickey puts to the witness that Grace “brushed him off”.

“Yes, that’s possible,” he replied.

The witness is excused.

Grace Millane murder trial: Man details date with backpacker before she died

Why is this even allowed in evidence?

 

[mrjitty]

All of these oddities and issues – searching *advertiser censored*, searching for vultures existing in New Zealand, the previous accused actions – are not proof of murder. They're not irrelevant to the immediate 'act,' but they are not proof of anything either.

You have to apply deductive reasoning.

This is 100% incorrect as far as the criminal law of NZ goes

For the longest time, the Court will infer intention from circumstantial evidence - often in preference to unreliable statements from the accused. Afterall, there is seldom evidence of exactly what the accused was thinking at the time of the murder.

In simple terms, the Jury is entitled to look at the established facts and make reasonable and obvious inferences about intention, and these frequently come form actions after death. Therefore acts which indicate consciousness of guilt like lying to police or concealing the crime, have long been extremely relevant.

 

[jamjim]

Because typically in rape trials, this kind of evidence is not allowed.

But because Grace was murdered, somehow *advertiser censored* shaming evidence is being introduced

This witness has zero probative value. The defence called him only because Grace had a one night stand. He specifically did not engage in any strangulation sex with her.

The voice of reason as always, @mrjitty!

 

[mrjitty]

SBM.

IMO, saying "she got in a silly position" is victim blaming. Literally millions of strangers meet in clubs and on apps. They have sex, go home and may or may not see that person again. It's not a silly position, and they certainly don't expect to die

Also, let's not forget, we only think it's a sexual crime/breath play/kink, because he (and his defence team) are shaping that narrative.

Maybe she mentioned in passing that she did it sometimes with her ex. They go back to his room and have "vanilla" sex. He then strangles her later and uses that excuse with the police.
It's not like he hasn't lied to them about other things and changed his story.
He nearly suffocated that other girl and she hadn't suggested it to him...

All moo

BIB

I still think this is most likely. Because it mirrors his attack on the other complainant witness.

And as far as that witness goes, I prefer her evidence over his.

There is every reason to think she was truthful, and no reason to think he was.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I really am freaking amazed this evidence is even allowed.

Probative value = 0

You would not be allowed to introduce this evidence in a rape trial.

It appears it's still allowed in NZ, not in the UK? I looked into it because the Judge hasn't intervened. Once the law is changed, this wouldn't happen for victims like Grace or rape survivors. The article is worth reading and explains the low rate of convictions for rape and sexual violence in NZ. I'll be sad if this is applied to Grace in any way.



The Government plans to change the way sexual violence survivors give evidence in an effort to improve their access to justice and protect them from being revictimised and retraumatised. The changes come as part of a suite of legislative reforms in the justice sector, and sit alongside recent changes to family violence laws.
The proposed laws, which the Government plans to introduce later this year, included six core changes “to ensure that the justice system, in prosecuting sexual violence cases, does no more harm to victims and survivors”.

They would see a tightening of rules around evidence relating to a complainant’s sexual history. Currently, a survivor’s sexual history could be used in an effort to discredit them.
Overdue changes to 'harrowing' court process

 

[mrjitty]

The voice of reason as always, @mrjitty!

I've been discussing this with a US lawyer elsewhere

It seems like there might be a ironic gap in the law. So if Grace had survived this attack and sexual assault charges brought, typically the Rape Shield legislation would prevent so called "propensity evidence" (*advertiser censored* shaming) unless the evidence is specifically relevant

Section 44 protects complainants in prosecutions for sexual offences from certain questions and evidence about their sexual experience and reputation. The starting point is to exclude evidence or questions that relate to the complainant's reputation in sexual matters or to the complainant's sexual experience with a person other than the defendant. However, the Judge may permit any evidence or a question about that experience if satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to exclude it because of its direct relevance to the facts in issue or to the question of the appropriate sentence (the heightened relevance test).[5]

So I can see that the ex boyfriends evidence is relevant as it specifically includes strangulation.

But i fail to see how one night stand evidence with no strangulation is relevant, or even just some dude who friended her on a hook up site? WTF?

This seems to be a gap in the law, where because Grace was murdered, it is allowed in.

 

[mrjitty]

It appears it's still allowed in NZ, not in the UK? I looked into it because the Judge hasn't intervened. Once the law is changed, this wouldn't happen for victims like Grace or rape survivors. The article is worth reading and explains the low rate of convictions for rape and sexual violence in NZ. I'll be sad if this is applied to Grace in any way.



The Government plans to change the way sexual violence survivors give evidence in an effort to improve their access to justice and protect them from being revictimised and retraumatised. The changes come as part of a suite of legislative reforms in the justice sector, and sit alongside recent changes to family violence laws.
The proposed laws, which the Government plans to introduce later this year, included six core changes “to ensure that the justice system, in prosecuting sexual violence cases, does no more harm to victims and survivors”.

They would see a tightening of rules around evidence relating to a complainant’s sexual history. Currently, a survivor’s sexual history could be used in an effort to discredit them.
Overdue changes to 'harrowing' court process

While we need reform, we do in fact already have rape shield laws which restrict evidence of prior sexual history.

See NZ evidence Act 2006 s 44

Evidence Act 2006 No 69 (as at 01 July 2019), Public Act 44 Evidence of sexual experience of complainants in sexual cases – New Zealand Legislation

The problem is that because Grace is dead and its a murder trial, s44 does not apply.

 

[mrjitty]

Having read recent posts, now seems like a good time to bring this point forward again.
There have been earlier posts on this thread by a poster who is familiar with NZ law who has also highlighted the definition of murder in NZ law.

@Tortoise was correct that the defence is engaged in mud slinging and smoke screens to distract from their lack of evidence on the only issue that matters at trial.

How is it that the accused strangled / restrained the victim for many minutes, including production of blood, in a way that does not meet the definition of murder under under S167 of the NZ Crimes Act?

Even the accused has not explained how this was possible.

 

[mrjitty]

Good point. Here is an example to think about it. What if a friend is drunk and asks you to punch him for a laugh as a dare. You hit him, but stronger than you thought as you were inebriated and have been working out at a gym for a few months and didnt realise how strong you were, and also they hit their head on the ground and die. That is reckless, but encouraged recklessness. Is that murder or manslaughter.

I've actually seen this game played by the rugby lads in the pub when I was a student. A guy hit his mate rather too hard, and the guy's head slammed down on the table as he crumpled. No one died that goodness. Had the guy died, it might not even be manslaughter because potentially there is no assault. There was consent to the punch.

In any event, there is a critical, critical point of analysis here, and I am going to use reference to the Pistorius trial and the core common law concept of "Dolus eventualis"

In Pistorius he fired 4 shots "at a door". But the point is, anyone knows as a matter of common sense, if you shoot at someone with a gun, they may die. So logically, if they do die, you understood that possibility but did it intentionally - so its murder. Even if you did not mean to kill them, you intentionally did an illegal act, knowing they might die

In your example, the attacker, may not subjectively (i.e. actually) have foreseen that punching his mate might kill him. So those fight cases are treated as manslaughter. Whereas kicking a guy on the ground in the head might well be charged as murder as you "must have known the risks" (but note consent might mean there is no assault/illegal act)

In NZ, we codified this concept, in the Crimes Act

s 167(b) if the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily injury that is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not:

So in my highly overvalued opinion, because he caused a bodily injury, and knows extended strangulation can likely cause death, and was reckless about that possibility, it is clearly murder even if you accept all the defence facts

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Love it when you put your lawyer head on, Jitty!

 

[PrimeSuspect]

The evidence is intended to help the jury of seven women and five men determine what happened inside the CityLife hotel between the night of December 1 and morning of December 2, 2018.

Grace Millane murder trial: Live updates as defence's overseas witnesses stream into court

The accused taking the stand would help the jury significantly if his claims are true, it's strange that he won't, imo. I know it shouldn't be held against him but it doesn't seem fair as Grace's sex life and preferences are used against her.

I'm preparing for disappointment.

 

[Tortoise]

your right his actions afterwards don't mean **** supposedly, but you could also say that about grace's choking interests in that case, just cause she liked it with previous partners/ex bfs doesn't mean she wanted it with the accused right? ( its likely she did but we still don't really know, she didn't with the guy the night before). Why are we supposed to just suddenly start believing this guys version of events who's been proven to be a pathological liar? he lied to the police, he lies to all his dates, he lies about his employment, he lied about a money situation to his landlord, who's to say he isn't lying now?

I think that's the reason for all the defence witnesses tbh. He can't be believed. The defence had to get over that hurdle for the jury to even begin to discuss his narrative.