Grace Millane
-
@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
-
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@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
I suppose it comes to whether you can make 'reckless' stick, as you say.
Let's say you are drunk and ask your drunk mate to drive you home. In this case he is acting illegally to start with but for the sake of argument let's say you both consented to the risk.
He then speeds and loses control, crashes and you die. The charge for this (even though you died from his illegal actions) is a lesser one than murder. Causing death from drinking and driving is 'up to 10 years' punishment.So in this case a consensual but legal act, risky because of drink and (if proved) an increased risk by one party not being in control. Does that warrant a murder conviction? I'd argue not.
Anyway, still some of the case to run and the judge's legal summary. Will be interesting.
If he is convicted for murder though, you can guarantee an appeal.
-
@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.When the story first broke I thought she might have oded and he freaked out rather than her encountering some random predator while travelling . It’s part of the reason I thought it was wrong for the pm to involve herself in the conversation before the facts were known .
Now the truth has come out “ you should have been able to indulge your sadomasochistic fetishes with random strangers you met in the Internet in another part of the world but you weren’t “ doesn’t have the same ring to it .Feel really sorry for the parents , first losing a daughter than having the most private parts of her life known to any stranger anywhere following the case.
-
@jegga 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.When the story first broke I thought she might have oded and he freaked out rather than her encountering some random predator while travelling . It’s part of the reason I thought it was wrong for the pm to involve herself in the conversation before the facts were known .
Now the truth has come out “ you should have been able to indulge your sadomasochistic fetishes with random strangers you met in the Internet in another part of the world but you weren’t “ doesn’t have the same ring to it .Feel really sorry for the parents , first losing a daughter than having the most private parts of her life known to any stranger anywhere following the case.
I don’t dismiss your point but the media (and social media) has a lot to answer for. Attractive backpacker goes missing and turns up dead makes great clicks and headlines. This creates a narrative and pressure that doesn’t wait for facts to be gathered.
Bet all those people that marched on vigils feel a bit silly now.
This will be a big lesson on how responses need to be tempered and clear to shut down off the mark damaging rumors.
The PMs comments were a well intended but misguided attempt at damage control IMO. -
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@jegga 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.When the story first broke I thought she might have oded and he freaked out rather than her encountering some random predator while travelling . It’s part of the reason I thought it was wrong for the pm to involve herself in the conversation before the facts were known .
Now the truth has come out “ you should have been able to indulge your sadomasochistic fetishes with random strangers you met in the Internet in another part of the world but you weren’t “ doesn’t have the same ring to it .Feel really sorry for the parents , first losing a daughter than having the most private parts of her life known to any stranger anywhere following the case.
I don’t dismiss your point but the media (and social media) has a lot to answer for. Attractive backpacker goes missing and turns up dead makes great clicks and headlines. This creates a narrative and pressure that doesn’t wait for facts to be gathered.
Bet all those people that marched on vigils feel a bit silly now.
This will be a big lesson on how responses need to be tempered and clear to shut down off the mark damaging rumors.
The PMs comments were a well intended but misguided attempt at damage control IMO.I forgot about the vigils , how cringy .
I’m sure most people have parts of their life they’d rather keep private and it’s unfortunate and sad when it comes out this way particularly when the pm has put her on a pedestal like she did .
-
@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