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.
-
@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.
-
@Mokey said in Grace Millane:
@Godder If she was drunk (as the tox report confirmed) does that impact the 'consensual sex act' defence? Would have thought someone being impaired would negate the ability to consent?
For me that is a strong point. Aren't we trying to teach people about what consent really means? Being drunk and not saying no does not equate to saying yes.
-
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@Mokey said in Grace Millane:
@Godder If she was drunk (as the tox report confirmed) does that impact the 'consensual sex act' defence? Would have thought someone being impaired would negate the ability to consent?
For me that is a strong point. Aren't we trying to teach people about what consent really means? Being drunk and not saying no does not equate to saying yes.
She might have consented to sex but not to being choked . Chances are probably never asked about the choking anyway
-
@jegga said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
@Mokey said in Grace Millane:
@Godder If she was drunk (as the tox report confirmed) does that impact the 'consensual sex act' defence? Would have thought someone being impaired would negate the ability to consent?
For me that is a strong point. Aren't we trying to teach people about what consent really means? Being drunk and not saying no does not equate to saying yes.
She might have consented to sex but not to being choked . Chances are probably never asked about the choking anyway
The other injuries would suggest she was forcibly restrained against her will and ultimately died. Doesnt sound consensual
-
Reading what is going on this morning in court, this guy deserves locking up simply for being an idiot of the highest degree.
The bullshit he spun to the cops and ever changing stories are the most ridiculous bunch of lies since Trump explained to Melania about not cheating.
Did he not even think that the hotel would have cameras? -
@Mokey correct, although the legal test is high, but the charges don't include sexual assault or sexual violation (rape), so it's hard to say that lack of consent to sexual activity is part of the prosecution case here.
The wording in legislation is "A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is so affected by alcohol or some other drug that he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent to the activity."
If that was the case, the charges would probably include more than murder which suggests that the prosecution are pushing on the idea that the choking wasn't sexual activity, and was instead intended to cause death. ("sexual activity" is defined as either sexual connection aka sex, or anything that would be indecent assault without consent)
-
@canefan Haven't read all the case notes, but that's a possibility. Would be a theory that fits the evidence and post-death actions - not part of the plan for the evening (so not premeditated in that respect), but he lost his temper and killed her at some point, and then he suddenly had to deal with a body, hence the internet searches etc.
Another factor that makes me think consent to sexual activity and therefore rape are not part of the prosecution case is that if she died during a rape due to strangulation, it would come under one of the other definitions of murder i.e. "if he or she by any means wilfully stops the breath of any person for any of the purposes aforesaid, and death ensues from such stopping of breath." (the "purposes aforesaid" include rape).
This is part of what is often called the "felony-murder" rule i.e. if a victim dies during the commission of a serious offence due to grievous bodily injury, adminstration of a stupefying or overpowering thing (e.g. drugs, gas etc), or due to wilfully stopping their breath, it may be murder even if death was not intended or foreseen.
-
The Crown has finished presenting its case and seems to be relying on the fact that the accused continually lied and went to great lengths to try and cover up what was done and even during the questioning where he proffered the '50 Shades' alibi he was lying about other aspects.
I guess that because we can't hear her side of the story they are banking on showing that he can't be believed.The 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?
Defence case to start next week but they are left trying to explain why, even when supposedly 'coming clean' their client continued to lie. He claimed that he took photos before death yet they were after. Claimed that he crashed out and didn't even know she was still in the room yet was busy searching the internet. Claimed that she asked him to do stuff he was unfamiliar with, yet two previous partners have testified otherwise.
At this stage it is still looking like sex act gone wrong but likely instigated by him, not her, and he went too far. Other explanation is the path they haven't gone down as it is even harder to prove, which is that even the sex was against her will and she was trying to get out when he lost control.
His actions afterward can probably be explained better by a psychologist, but to me they ring the narcissist bell. It seems to be all about 'why has this happened to me?'. I would discount much of the actual detail of the behaviour and focus on whether he is credible. Does his version of events stack up when comparing the facts about what is known against the statements he made. The jury is being asked not to believe his story about those few minutes as he keeps proving an inability to tell the truth.
Does reasonable doubt remain? That is tricky. There is certainly doubt. It (those few minutes) COULD have happened the way he described, but is it reasonable to think that is the one thing he is telling the truth on?
-
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
The Crown has finished presenting its case and seems to be relying on the fact that the accused continually lied and went to great lengths to try and cover up what was done and even during the questioning where he proffered the '50 Shades' alibi he was lying about other aspects.
I guess that because we can't hear her side of the story they are banking on showing that he can't be believed.The 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?
Defence case to start next week but they are left trying to explain why, even when supposedly 'coming clean' their client continued to lie. He claimed that he took photos before death yet they were after. Claimed that he crashed out and didn't even know she was still in the room yet was busy searching the internet. Claimed that she asked him to do stuff he was unfamiliar with, yet two previous partners have testified otherwise.
At this stage it is still looking like sex act gone wrong but likely instigated by him, not her, and he went too far. Other explanation is the path they haven't gone down as it is even harder to prove, which is that even the sex was against her will and she was trying to get out when he lost control.
His actions afterward can probably be explained better by a psychologist, but to me they ring the narcissist bell. It seems to be all about 'why has this happened to me?'. I would discount much of the actual detail of the behaviour and focus on whether he is credible. Does his version of events stack up when comparing the facts about what is known against the statements he made. The jury is being asked not to believe his story about those few minutes as he keeps proving an inability to tell the truth.
Does reasonable doubt remain? That is tricky. There is certainly doubt. It (those few minutes) COULD have happened the way he described, but is it reasonable to think that is the one thing he is telling the truth on?
@Snowy wants you on his jury , “ it’s entirely possible he didn’t know anything about all the bodies in his backyard and a lightning strike simultaneously skinned and cooked them all”.
-
@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.