Grace Millane.

[Katman]

Ideally they should be able to wear what they like.

Ideally, yes.

But we live in a far from ideal world.

[husaberg]

Ideally, yes.

But we live in a far from ideal world.

Ideally here is where you point out how it is you can believe with any degree of credibility that you know more then the case then either the Judge or the jury did.

Asking a pissed stranger to choke her certainly 'contributed' to her death.

Except for the inconvenient fact that she was clearly into choking during sex and had asked others to do exactly that to her in the past.
That, coupled with the absence of any evidence to suggest she fought against her killer, is a fairly clear indicator that the action was consensual.

Odd that you thing you know more than the jury does. Not really odd for you to claim this, but rather telling that you claim to being as it is a fact you clearly can not know more about the case than they do.

Justice Moore said if the jury believed Millane consented to the accused applying force to her neck - they must acquit the accused on both murder and manslaughter.
"It is a defense if [the accused] honestly believed Miss Millane consented to him putting pressure on her neck … It does not matter if it was mistaken or unreasonable," he explained.
If they believe she did not consent - they must find him guilty of manslaughter

He said the jury had to be 100 per cent sure that the accused had murderous intent when he put his hands on Millane's neck.
"Are you sure that when he applied pressure to Miss Millane's neck … did he intend to cause injury?" he posed.
"If you answer is yes, then you would find [the accused] guilty of murder."

Also as it has been pointed out numerous times the last person the killer tried to asphyxiate also had no external injuries, but she fought back as was physically larger than Grace was.
She was also adamant she gave no consent to being asphyxiated.

So steve, how is it you know more than the judge and the jury do about the case?.................

[Katman]

There's a good boy.

Only 5 more times to go.

Chop, chop.

[FJRider]

Ideally here is where you point out how it is you can believe with any degree of credibility that you know more then the case then either the Judge or the jury did.

The case hinges on one point ... "Justice Moore said if the jury believed Millane consented to the accused applying force to her neck - they must acquit the accused on both murder and manslaughter" ... The jury were not in the room at the time of her death. He was found guilty because of what (enough) members of the jury "Believed" ...

How many members of the jury were female (or even male), with daughters ... ??? and do YOU "Believe" it would alter the mindset of any such jurors in this case. A previous accusation that he did it to another woman does not necessarily mean he did it without consent in this case.

Whatever the actual facts ... he will probably get a hard time in the cells. Probably hoping for solitary confinement.

[Katman]

The case hinges on one point ... "Justice Moore said if the jury believed Millane consented to the accused applying force to her neck - they must acquit the accused on both murder and manslaughter" ... The jury were not in the room at the time of her death. He was found guilty because of what (enough) members of the jury "Believed" ...

How many members of the jury were female (or even male), with daughters ... ??? and do YOU "Believe" it would alter the mindset of any such jurors in this case. A previous accusation that he did it to another woman does not necessarily mean he did it without consent in this case.

Whatever the actual facts ... he will probably get a hard time in the cells. Probably hoping for solitary confinement.

And I suspect that regardless of whether the jury believed the choking was consensual or not, they were determined to pass the only verdict that was ever going to be acceptable to the New Zealand public.

[husaberg]

And I suspect that regardless of whether the jury believed the choking was consensual or not, they were determined to pass the only verdict that was ever going to be acceptable to the New Zealand public.

Really steve you are stating your own opinion again as if its a fact

Tell everyone how you know more about the case than the jury or the judge.
Because you clearly stated that the deceased had asked the man found guilty of her murder to choke her. How is it you know this Steve?

Asking a pissed stranger to choke her certainly 'contributed' to her death.

[Katman]

Really steve you are stating your own opinion again as if its a fact

Starting the sentence with "and I suspect" is certainly not stating anything as fact.

[husaberg]

Starting the sentence with "and I suspect" is certainly not stating anything as fact.

And I suspect that regardless of whether the jury believed the choking was consensual or not, they were determined to pass the only verdict that was ever going to be acceptable to the New Zealand public.

Justice Moore said if the jury believed Millane consented to the accused applying force to her neck - they must acquit the accused on both murder and manslaughter.
"It is a defense if [the accused] honestly believed Miss Millane consented to him putting pressure on her neck … It does not matter if it was mistaken or unreasonable," he explained.
If they believe she did not consent - they must find him guilty of manslaughter

He said the jury had to be 100 per cent sure that the accused had murderous intent when he put his hands on Millane's neck.
"Are you sure that when he applied pressure to Miss Millane's neck … did he intend to cause injury?" he posed.
"If you answer is yes, then you would find [the accused] guilty of murder."

So not only now, do you know more about the evidence and also what the judge and jury thought.
You now claim to know their motivation for finding the accused guilty despite of the overwhelming nature of the evidence against him.

[Katman]

So not only now do you know more about the evidence and also what the judge and jury thought you now claim to know their motivation for finding the accused guilty despite of the overwhelming nature of the evidence against him.

Comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?

[husaberg]

Comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?

A five year old could comprehend you have been caught in a series of lies steve
Hence why you ignore the questions.

I will give you a hint
You don't know more about the trial or the evidence presented to the jury, than either the jury or the judge.
You can't say the jury pre-decided the outcome of the court case, as you were not there or privy to any inside information.
You can't state that the victim asked the murder to choke her as you were not there. The jury certainly found this not to be the case.
The jury under instruction from a Judge considered all the evidence and found he murdered her beyond a reasonable doubt. They dd not find it was an accident during a sex act they did not find it to be manslaughter .They found him guilty of murder.
The fact you keep making up shit about this proves your motives in posting this crap are likely purely attention seeking and are nothing to do with the case.
Feel free to keep on jerking on that you know better, when its clearly obvious you dont know buggar all about the case.

[FJRider]

Really steve you are stating your own opinion again as if its a fact

If you actually NEED to ask ... you're a bigger fuckwit than steve believes you are ...

[Katman]

And furthermore, anyone on here who still thinks it's me trying to silence another person's opinion is clearly reading a different thread to me.

[jasonu]

If you actually NEED to ask ... you're a bigger fuckwit than steve believes you are ...

I'm not sure that's possible.

[FJRider]

A five year old could comprehend you have been caught in a series of lies steve
Hence why you ignore the questions.








Feel free to keep on jerking on that you know better, when its clearly obvious you dont know buggar all about the case.

You ignore my questions ... and you question him when YOU do the same to me.

There is a name for that ... (starts with H ... )

Jurors are human. They do their best. if they get it right or wrong ... that is how it is.

A verdict acceptable to the general public will seldom be questioned. As ANY jury verdict should be. Commented on yes, but the verdict stands.

To be judged by your peer's is the guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender.

However ... there ARE downsides to the process. Are you smart enough to know what they are ... ??

[FJRider]

Starting the sentence with "and I suspect" is certainly not stating anything as fact.

Another way of saying "I don't actually know. but could be true, maybe" ...