Grace Millane
-
@hydro11 said in Grace Millane:
My question for you guys is what evidence would you require to find someone guilty of a strangulation murder? Couldn't any defendant just say it was consensual?
It's simple. You watch whatever he does for 48 hours afterwards and sentence from that 100% relevant behaviour.
It's how the world works dummy😉
-
@hydro11 it'll come down to the coroner 's ruling on the nature of her death and the contributing factors. If she happened to die from an unknown or unforeseeable side effect of their sexual activity then that's quite different to a finding of far too much force being used (and/or for too long a period) that could only result in death. The latter would likely be positioned as murder, whereas the former - or the grey areas in between, could be manslaughter or ??
Echo the focus on their encounter and what lead to her tragic death, not his actions afterwards. It's super hard to divorce them from one another, but the trial is about the nature of her death, not how odd and abhorrent his behaviour afterwards appears to people.
-
@Paekakboyz said in Grace Millane:
@hydro11 it'll come down to the coroner 's ruling on the nature of her death and the contributing factors. If she happened to die from an unknown or unforeseeable side effect of their sexual activity then that's quite different to a finding of far too much force being used (and/or for too long a period) that could only result in death. The latter would likely be positioned as murder, whereas the former - or the grey areas in between, could be manslaughter or ??
Echo the focus on their encounter and what lead to her tragic death, not his actions afterwards. It's super hard to divorce them from one another, but the trial is about the nature of her death, not how odd and abhorrent his behaviour afterwards appears to people.
The Coroner won't rule on the death until after the High Court trial. Do you mean the pathologist?
-
@Siam said in Grace Millane:
@hydro11 said in Grace Millane:
My question for you guys is what evidence would you require to find someone guilty of a strangulation murder? Couldn't any defendant just say it was consensual?
It's simple. You watch whatever he does for 48 hours afterwards and sentence from that 100% relevant behaviour.
It's how the world works dummy😉
I actually wanted to enter a genuine discussion with you. It's a shame you don't want to.
-
given there is allegedly blood splatter in a few places in the room, the sexual strangulation angle gets weaker IMO...
All that may have been part of some bizaare sex act that went wrong, but I agree with @hydro11 above that his beahviour will have some bearing on things, there are 12 humans on that jury, they will be influenced by what they believe is rational/irrational/guilt-laden behaviour.
I will add that I do like the way they present the facts to jurors before they send them away to deliberate (I believe a change that was made in the past few years) almost like a pick-a-path type book.
This will ensure the JUrors all fully understand what they need to be certain of before this or that decision.
-
@taniwharugby the only explanation offered regarding the blood is that she was bleeding from the nose and mouth after strangulation. No evidence offered so far of anything else and I am pretty certain it would have been by now.
-
@taniwharugby said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial so assuming she died of strangulation, they had one session that caused the blood got up wandered around bleeding but had another crack that caused her death.
No.I think you may want to read that blood evidence again. From what I gather she was lying on the floor and had been bleeding onto the carpet. He tried to clean that blood up and banged to spread it into a bigger patch. Another patch was very circular like it was from the bottom of a bucket. The 'splatter' was consistent with being flicked there on moving the body.
-
I don't know how much stock juries take into pattern of behaviour. I'm still not convinced of the murder charge. The guy seems to have issues, but premeditated killing? Seems more like a spur of the moment thing in response to her maybe having second thoughts
-
@canefan looking more like rough/dangerous sex that went wrong. He claims it was consensual. Prosecutors presenting a picture that he may not have gained consent and went ahead anyway (with the choking).
I’m still wondering how he can claim consent yet also claim to have been so pissed that he fell asleep in the shower after.
I doubt premeditation but certainly think possible that he instigated and controlled the strangulation and ‘caused’ death. -
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@canefan looking more like rough/dangerous sex that went wrong. He claims it was consensual. Prosecutors presenting a picture that he may not have gained consent and went ahead anyway (with the choking).
I’m still wondering how he can claim consent yet also claim to have been so pissed that he fell asleep in the shower after.
I doubt premeditation but certainly think possible that he instigated and controlled the strangulation and ‘caused’ death.So if the prosecution are trying to make a murder charge stick, is it a yes or no situation or can they fall back to a manslaughter or wrongful death charge? If it's all or nothing I think there is a significant chance of acquittal
-
Going back to this post as evidence emerges of bruising consistent with either restraining or deliberate 'roughness' (bruising on arms and shoulders)
@Godder said in Grace Millane:
To show murder, the prosecution has to prove a few things beyond reasonable doubt:
-
That it was homicide, legally defined as the killing of a human being by another human being, rather than natural causes like old age, illness, undiagnosed heart condition etc. Animal attacks and suicide are also not counted as homicide.
-
That the homicide is culpable i.e. caused by an illegal act or omission. Hitting and killing a pedestrian is homicide but it won't be culpable if they jump in front of a truck or train who has no way to avoid the accident.
-
That the act was deliberate, premeditated and intended to cause death, or reckless as to whether death might occur and death was a reasonable possibility (arson while knowing someone is in the building is an example of this). It's also murder if someone deliberately causes grievous bodily injury during the commission of a serious crime or while escaping from it.
-
If it's culpable homicide but not murder, it's manslaughter.
So 1. is ticked off. Even the defence are conceding that he killed her.
For 2. to be correct the prosecution need to prove that the act was against her will. The story that they deliberately had sex involving strangulation is looking a bit weaker (IMO) alongside the bruising. He claims that the whole episode was 'rough sex' but in particular the bruising on the elbow is consistent with someone being grabbed as they tried to get away.
The first part of 3. looks unlikely but recklessness is certainly an option.Still lots to come but there is a picture being built that she may have tried to get away from him as he became rougher (hence ending up on the floor) and he then pinned her down.
-
-
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@canefan looking more like rough/dangerous sex that went wrong. He claims it was consensual. Prosecutors presenting a picture that he may not have gained consent and went ahead anyway (with the choking).
I’m still wondering how he can claim consent yet also claim to have been so pissed that he fell asleep in the shower after.
I doubt premeditation but certainly think possible that he instigated and controlled the strangulation and ‘caused’ death.So if the prosecution are trying to make a murder charge stick, is it a yes or no situation or can they fall back to a manslaughter or wrongful death charge? If it's all or nothing I think there is a significant chance of acquittal
If the act causing death is illegal then it can be manslaughter if it is not murder. That looks like an option here because the law doesn't allow people to consent to death or actual bodily harm unless there is a public policy reason to allow consent e.g. surgery. Strangulation being a recently added crime makes it harder to claim consent.
-
@Godder said in Grace Millane:
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@canefan looking more like rough/dangerous sex that went wrong. He claims it was consensual. Prosecutors presenting a picture that he may not have gained consent and went ahead anyway (with the choking).
I’m still wondering how he can claim consent yet also claim to have been so pissed that he fell asleep in the shower after.
I doubt premeditation but certainly think possible that he instigated and controlled the strangulation and ‘caused’ death.So if the prosecution are trying to make a murder charge stick, is it a yes or no situation or can they fall back to a manslaughter or wrongful death charge? If it's all or nothing I think there is a significant chance of acquittal
If the act causing death is illegal then it can be manslaughter if it is not murder. That looks like an option here because the law doesn't allow people to consent to death or actual bodily harm unless there is a public policy reason to allow consent e.g. surgery. Strangulation being a recently added crime makes it harder to claim consent.
So if the other tinder date witness testifies to being asphyxiated and fearing for her life without consent I wonder how damaging that is to his case
-
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@Godder said in Grace Millane:
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@canefan looking more like rough/dangerous sex that went wrong. He claims it was consensual. Prosecutors presenting a picture that he may not have gained consent and went ahead anyway (with the choking).
I’m still wondering how he can claim consent yet also claim to have been so pissed that he fell asleep in the shower after.
I doubt premeditation but certainly think possible that he instigated and controlled the strangulation and ‘caused’ death.So if the prosecution are trying to make a murder charge stick, is it a yes or no situation or can they fall back to a manslaughter or wrongful death charge? If it's all or nothing I think there is a significant chance of acquittal
If the act causing death is illegal then it can be manslaughter if it is not murder. That looks like an option here because the law doesn't allow people to consent to death or actual bodily harm unless there is a public policy reason to allow consent e.g. surgery. Strangulation being a recently added crime makes it harder to claim consent.
So if the other tinder date witness testifies to being asphyxiated and fearing for her life without consent I wonder how damaging that is to his case
hugely. The 'accidental' doesn't defend much if you 'accidentally' strangle other people who fear they may die.
I have kids. They 'accdientally' eat bits of chocolate. This does not convince me as judge, jury and er... dispenser of fatherly jokes.
-
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@Godder said in Grace Millane:
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@canefan looking more like rough/dangerous sex that went wrong. He claims it was consensual. Prosecutors presenting a picture that he may not have gained consent and went ahead anyway (with the choking).
I’m still wondering how he can claim consent yet also claim to have been so pissed that he fell asleep in the shower after.
I doubt premeditation but certainly think possible that he instigated and controlled the strangulation and ‘caused’ death.So if the prosecution are trying to make a murder charge stick, is it a yes or no situation or can they fall back to a manslaughter or wrongful death charge? If it's all or nothing I think there is a significant chance of acquittal
If the act causing death is illegal then it can be manslaughter if it is not murder. That looks like an option here because the law doesn't allow people to consent to death or actual bodily harm unless there is a public policy reason to allow consent e.g. surgery. Strangulation being a recently added crime makes it harder to claim consent.
So if the other tinder date witness testifies to being asphyxiated and fearing for her life without consent I wonder how damaging that is to his case
Quite damaging, I would have thought. Harder to claim it was an accident when he previously had an issue with going too far. A basic point now would be that he should have learnt his lesson from the earlier date, and that a reasonable person would have learnt that and modified their actions in future dates. From my previous 4 point test:
- Yes, it's homicide.
- It looks culpable because he should have known better based on previous experience, and therefore can't be called an accident, and he may not have had her consent for the choking, so it's an unlawful act.
- This looks harder - the prosecution has to show that the act caused bodily injury and was sufficiently reckless to be murder or he actually intended to cause her death. By showing that he should have known better, recklessness is more on the table than earlier.
- If the jury agree that 2 is shown, then this is a minimum outcome.