GUILTY NEW ZEALAND - Grace Millane, 22, British backpacker, Auckland, 1 Dec 2018 #3

[cybervampira]

Police searching for missing British woman in Auckland

Grace Millane, 22, arrived in New Zealand about two weeks ago and has been in constant contact with her family via messaging service WhatsApp.

But they became alarmed when she didn't respond to birthday messages on Sunday.

Her older brother Michael Millane said they last spoke on Thursday, November 29, and concerns for her safety were mounting.

"She has not been back to her hostel room since [December 1]," her brother Michael Millane said.

The young tourist had been staying at Base Backpackers on Auckland's Queen St.



Family appealing for information after English backpacker goes missing in Auckland central

Thread #1
Thread #2

 

[All & Forward]

I'm presuming she had an iPhone. I wonder if the iCloud was ever accessed? I think the default is for it to back up photos almost always, whereas documents and apps aren't a priority in syncing, but I don't know if you need wifi or if it'll do it just with 4G?

 

[sunnynz]

I'm presuming she had an iPhone. I wonder if the iCloud was ever accessed? I think the default is for it to back up photos almost always, whereas documents and apps aren't a priority in syncing, but I don't know if you need wifi or if it'll do it just with 4G?

My iCloud storage is full so mine no longer gets back up. I am guessing they checked this but yeah it’s not infallible.

So I am guessing now we get judges summing up tomorrow and then straight into deliberations? Does that mean we potentially get a verdict tomorrow?

 

[MsBetsy]

Has anyone seen a diagram or photo that shows the bed to shower to blood to fridge distances/locations? I was trying to gauge where she'd have been lying and where the shower would be from some of the pictures of the room but you can't seem much so I wonder if anything better has come out? I've always thought "********" about not noticing her until morning because like Dickey said you would literally be walking past/over the body from what I could ascertain. Damn police losing ****. That's annoying.

Why should it even matter if he didn't see the body when he got out of the shower?
Didn't he take pictures of her body after she was dead?
I don't see how it's significant whether he saw her at that time or not.

Imo

 

[courtkim]

Why should it even matter if he didn't see the body when he got out of the shower?
Didn't he take pictures of her body after she was dead?
I don't see how it's significant whether he saw her at that time or not.

Imo

The defence argued today there is no proof of time of death and no evidence she was deceased in those photos. If we can't tell then it doesn't discredit what he said in the police interview about them taking photos of each other.
I think the "I didn't see her til morning thing" is just another - if not the biggest - flaw in his story. One that would be very hard to ignore.

 

[courtkim]

My iCloud storage is full so mine no longer gets back up. I am guessing they checked this but yeah it’s not infallible.

So I am guessing now we get judges summing up tomorrow and then straight into deliberations? Does that mean we potentially get a verdict tomorrow?

Yup one news said we might get a verdict as early as tomorrow afternoon. But that seems best case scenario.

 

[mrjitty]

I think a defendant should be barred from advancing a defence if he hasn't even admitted that defence in his own words.

It might attract adverse comment from the judge in summing up

It really is a key point

There is no evidence for the defence version

 

[mrjitty]

Brookie told the jury a critical mistake from the accused was "throwing away Miss Millane's phone" - which may have had intimate photos on it, further corroborating his story.
Grace Millane murder trial: 'It was an accidental death' - defence

Yes Brookie, THAT was his critical mistake. Sigh

/ snorts with laughter

 

[jamjim]

Grace Millane murder trial: Live updates as Crown, defence present closing statements

He says the search about the Waitakere Ranges may have been the pair searching where they wanted to visit the following day. The search about fire could have been a mistake - "it could mean anything".

Ok, I thought we'd heard it all. Brookie, what the hell are you on??

 

[legal.beagle]

Ok, I thought we'd heard it all. Brookie, what the hell are you on??

Right?!

 

[Edinlass]

Well at least Brookie has sealed the deal for the accused, can only be a verdict of guilty.

 

[mrjitty]

Grace Millane murder trial: Live updates as Crown, defence present closing statements

He says the search about the Waitakere Ranges may have been the pair searching where they wanted to visit the following day. The search about fire could have been a mistake - "it could mean anything".

He asks where additional searches are about how to get away with strangulation.

Brookie also puts it to the jury that people often make random Google searches when drunk.

omg this is getting amazing

I get really fed up with counsel who indulge in wild speculation like this

The defence have the witness who can testify why the search was made. They did not call him. Accordingly counsel should not be allowed to sock puppet an explanation for the accused.

 

[mrjitty]

The judge will sum up and give directions to the jury. He will state that if they find him not guilty of murder, they can elect to find him guilty of manslaughter. And if he is not found guilty of that then he will be a free man. This is how NZ murder charges are handled, unless manslaughter is the original charge. If the judge's summary is reported, this will be made clear.

Exactly - I think there is no need to panic about this aspect

1. We haven't seen the indictment. For all we know, manslaughter is charged in the alternative.

2. IIRC, sometimes the Crown chooses not to charge manslaughter in the alternative for tactical reasons. e.g Counsel did not cover manslaughter in closing, as an option. In such cases, the Judge should direct the jury on how manslaughter could apply if they don't find murder. (Please don't take this as gospel, as I last studied Crimes in the early 90s! But that is what I remember.)

At least it is now clear that the defence argue that this is not even culpable homicide. Presumably they say that because there was consent, there was no unlawful act. So this is not a case of involuntary manslaughter. Again as the defence made no detailed legal submissions on the point that we got to hear - this is being left to the Judge to untangle.

It's possible the Judge will say that if the Jury believe that the accused's story is reasonably possibly true, then there is no unlawful act.

Honestly I can't be bothered to dredge through all the law on involuntary manslaughter via a negligent act - but I have a feeling you could make a strong argument that if this is not murder, then strangling someone for 5-10 mins would be covered.

I guess Counsel made submissions to the Court about this stuff.

 

[mrjitty]

Yeah I am wondering. In the US he would be facing conviction on multiple lesser charges besides/in the alternative to murder such as possibly manslaughter and abuse of a corpse and maybe obstruction of justice. I wonder if he has pled to some lesser things that are suppressed ( can’t have pled to manslaughter because Dickey says the defense is not conceding manslaughter).

I’m hoping the judge’s summing up tomorrow lays out what the jury has to decide.

It will. Judge's summing up is more detailed than in the US, as he will cover both legal and evidential aspects

The other thing is, the Court reporting is giving us no insight into the procedural aspects and legal submissions. The reporters only report on what is addressed to the jury.

This makes it hard to know what may have been charged or pleaded to. Hopefully more stuff emerges post verdict.

 

[mrjitty]

I think a defendant should be barred from advancing a defence if he hasn't even admitted that defence in his own words.

As you know from the McStay trial, I am also fed up with Counsel who begin to introduce a version based on wild speculation, while not calling the witness who could tell us what happened. Testimony via sock puppet.

Of course Brookie will argue he is entitled to set sail for the reasonable doubt in the Crown case, but IMO he has gone further and speculated a timeline into existence which the defendant did not disclose to police in interview.

This arguably could attract an adverse comment from the Judge in terms of relying on a key matters which not in his interview, and not testified to. Bare minimum I would like to see the Judge make this point clear.

According to the CCTV, the accused & Grace arrive at City Life at 9.41pm.

At 1.30 am he searches the Waitakeres and "hottest fire". Other search terms include 'large bags near me' and 'rigor mortis'

He then takes photos and goes on *advertiser censored* hub all before 2am.​

According to Brookie, all this has to happen before they have sex and Grace dies. So that is fully 4hrs and 20 mins need to be filled. What were they doing all that time? The defendant did not mention any of this in his interview.

And like you say, he gives no mention of how Grace actually dies because conveniently "all he can remember" is falling asleep in the shower and somehow not noticing her on the floor.

This has all the hallmarks of a timeline cooked up for trial.

 

[mrjitty]

It needs to be pointed out that thanks to sensible law reform in the UK, a judge can make an adverse inference where the accused exercises his right to silence, or fails to disclose key facts that ought reasonably to have been disclosed at pre-trial questioning. This often applies to alibi defences to make it harder for the accused to cook up an alibi for trial when obviously the alibi could have been given to police in the first place.

AFAIK, NZ has not adopted such reforms.

So therefore the Judge cannot make an adverse comment on the failure of the accused to mention the internet searches/*advertiser censored* activity as part of his timeline which he now relies on at trial.

However ....

IMO the Judge might properly note in his evidential summary, the cursory nature of the accused's explanation for death to police (or lack thereof), and the tension in the defences timeline, vs the evidence presented and prosecution interpretation. So in other words, the defence's explanation for these firm time anchors, are not things the accused himself said.

It is a dicey area

 

[courtkim]

FYI - although we'll probably find this out through the judge's closing address tomorrow - one of the current affairs shows in NZ covered the manslaughter/murder question on their show tonight (The Project for NZ'ers).

Essentially the jury has what amounts to a checklist of questions they have to be able to answer "yes" to in order to find the accused guilty of murder. This list is apparently predetermined by both sides before the trial begins. If they answer "no" to any of those questions they then repeat the checklist process with a new list for the manslaughter charge.

This is a fairly reputable current affairs show so I would be surprised if they didn't have rigid fact checking.

 

[katydid23]

FYI - although we'll probably find this out through the judge's closing address tomorrow - one of the current affairs shows in NZ covered the manslaughter/murder question on their show tonight (The Project for NZ'ers).

Essentially the jury has what amounts to a checklist of questions they have to be able to answer "yes" to in order to find the accused guilty of murder. This list is apparently predetermined by both sides before the trial begins. If they answer "no" to any of those questions they then repeat the checklist process with a new list for the manslaughter charge.

This is a fairly reputable current affairs show so I would be surprised if they didn't have rigid fact checking.

Was this checklist a reasonable one?
And did the prosecution successfully check off all the boxes?

 

[courtkim]

Was this checklist a reasonable one?
And did the prosecution successfully check off all the boxes?

I don't know if we know/or will ever know what the list entails.
Here's a link to the show, if you're not in NZ you may have to use a VPN but it's quite well spelled out from the 20min mark. They also did a segment with kiwi women using tinder seeing what their feelings were.

 

[mrjitty]

FYI - although we'll probably find this out through the judge's closing address tomorrow - one of the current affairs shows in NZ covered the manslaughter/murder question on their show tonight (The Project for NZ'ers).

Essentially the jury has what amounts to a checklist of questions they have to be able to answer "yes" to in order to find the accused guilty of murder. This list is apparently predetermined by both sides before the trial begins. If they answer "no" to any of those questions they then repeat the checklist process with a new list for the manslaughter charge.

This is a fairly reputable current affairs show so I would be surprised if they didn't have rigid fact checking.

Thanks! This is great info to have!

I've long forgotten this stuff. There was a time I wrote up judgements for law reports so would read a few murder appeal judgements each year. But basically this is hardly the first murder/manslaughter trial NZ has had, and this stuff has been heavily litigated. So key components of the judges instructions are boiler plated from long experience. He doesn't just make all this stuff up on the spot.

We also only see the iceberg effect. The lawyers have likely argued before the Judge as to how the law fits and the judge has to interpret that.

One of the issues I think is legally fascinating is the concept of "injury" as that is required for a murder conviction under s 167(b) - per the Crown alternate pleading.

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:

As you can see, there are 4 key requirements

1. Was there an injury?
2. Did he mean to cause it?
3. Did he know it was likely to cause death?
4. Was he reckless about the possibility of death?

s 167(b) is more aimed at the classic situation where you mean to hurt someone rather than intend to kill them. So if I deliberately hit you with a bottle on the head, all 4 boxes are probably ticked. I meant to injure you, and must have known it could kill you.

Strangulation "for sex choking" strikes me as an uncomfortable fit.

1. There was an injury - but the injury is not causing death. The strangling is causing death. Is blocking blood/oxygen flow an "injury"?
2. Did he intend to cause the injury?
3. Reckless? Clearly yes IMO

I do wonder if all of this is a bit too cute.

Strangling someone for 5-10 mins, you must have realised you were causing death but made the decision to continue. Seems the better fit.