Grace Millane.

[Paul in NZ]

wht killed kiwibiker?? Read this thread and ones like it and draw your own conclusions

[caspernz]

wht killed kiwibiker?? Read this thread and ones like it and draw your own conclusions

Sad but true

[Katman]

wht killed kiwibiker?? Read this thread and ones like it and draw your own conclusions

The simple answer to that Paul is if this thread and ones like it are somehow distasteful to you, then don't read them.

There is plenty else going on in KB to captivate your interests I'm sure.

There's a thread going at the moment exploring people's favourite Xmas tastes. That might bring some season cheer back to you.

[BMWST?]

........woosh.....

[jasonu]

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.




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.




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?.................

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?

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.

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.

You must sit there all day with your finger on the refresh button.

You should find a new hobby.

[Drew]

What about a young drunk woman wandering the streets late at night in any one of New Zealand's crime ridden cesspits, wearing next to nothing, who gets raped?

Do you parents say to your daughters "don't listen to that meanie Katman - you should be allowed to walk wherever you like, dressed however you like, in any sort of state you like" or do you try to get across to them the stupidity of placing themselves in a situation like that?

If my daughter was raped in that situation I wouldn't consider that ANY PART OF IT was her fault, or entertain that she could or should have avoided it. You are a fucking moron.

Anyone wilfully injuring any other person in any way, is the only person to blame. There is no argument of that.

[Katman]

If my daughter was raped in that situation I wouldn't consider that ANY PART OF IT was her fault, or entertain that she could or should have avoided it. You are a fucking moron.

Anyone wilfully injuring any other person in any way, is the only person to blame. There is no argument of that.

The difference being Drew that the second sentence of my post you've quoted infers that your daughter isn't the one raped in that situation.

The point is that by learning from other's piss-poor decision making, one can possibly prevent other incidents of the same misfortune from happening.

So would you advise your daughter that it's perfectly fine to walk through a crime ridden neighbourhood, late at night, by herself, pissed and wearing next to nothing or would you try to make her see the sense in not putting herself in that situation?

[husaberg]

The point is by learning from other's

Only you dont learn, as it has been point out heaps of times to you already what you post is not in anyway backed b the facts of the situation. Yet you go on doing it
trying to twist the facts to suit your pretty twisted troll narrative
Not only is it distasteful you are only intent of victim shaming and the whole thread is nothing more than a typical katman" look at me thread. "


this thread should have been in PD the minute you started lying about what occurred.
I bet you i dont post here in the next year and if i win you will admit you are a scumbag and will quit KB and stick to grinder.
You are an egg Unsubscribe.

[Katman]

Unsubscribe.

I bet you won't.

[sidecar bob]

You must sit there all day with your finger on the refresh button.

You should find a new hobby.

Holidays, sunshine, family, so much else to do this time of year than argue on the Internet.

[Katman]

Holidays, sunshine, family, so much else to do this time of year than argue on the Internet.

And yet, here you are.

[mashman]

And you still manage to miss my point.

It's the placing of that ultimate trust in the hands (quite literally) of someone that she didn't know from a bar of soap that I'm questioning the sensibility of.

No, I didn't miss your point, I merely pointed out that from my perspective, and a few others, that some people see such behaviour as sensible. The point you don't like, is that someone gets pleasure by being choked by another. Given that most rapists and "beaters up" of women/men are known to the "victim", being choked looks to be safer when in the hands of a stranger who knows that it is a part of a consensual act and isn't actually there to kill you, and moreover is doing to to help you pop your cork in a more spectacular fashion than normal. Remember the "stories" of the politicians with oranges in their mouths and plastic bags over their heads to help the ecstasy of the whole thing? It's been around for some considerable time, it has an inherent risk, but the relative risk to the same things happening at the hands of people known sees the stranger as safer (perverse, heh, as that might sound).

Sensibility is in the eye of the beholder. There is no fixed limit for its definition unless society as a whole deems such worthy of putting onto law. Thou shalt not have rough sex is going to be a bastard to enforce, because at time it's hard enough to self-enforce it .

[jasonu]

Holidays, sunshine, family, so much else to do this time of year than argue on the Internet.

Middle of winter here and only xmas and Jan 1 off. Sucks!!!

[jasonu]

No, I didn't miss your point, I merely pointed out that from my perspective, and a few others, that some people see such behaviour as sensible. The point you don't like, is that someone gets pleasure by being choked by another. Given that most rapists and "beaters up" of women/men are known to the "victim", being choked looks to be safer when in the hands of a stranger who knows that it is a part of a consensual act and isn't actually there to kill you, and moreover is doing to to help you pop your cork in a more spectacular fashion than normal. Remember the "stories" of the politicians with oranges in their mouths and plastic bags over their heads to help the ecstasy of the whole thing? It's been around for some considerable time, it has an inherent risk, but the relative risk to the same things happening at the hands of people known sees the stranger as safer (perverse, heh, as that might sound).

Sensibility is in the eye of the beholder. There is no fixed limit for its definition unless society as a whole deems such worthy of putting onto law. Thou shalt not have rough sex is going to be a bastard to enforce, because at time it's hard enough to self-enforce it .

I don't think KM is saying the choking itself is the problem, more getting a complete stranger to do it is the issue and I totally agree if that is the point put forward.

[mashman]

I don't think KM is saying the choking itself is the problem, more getting a complete stranger to do it is the issue and I totally agree if that is the point put forward.

Context is everything... people you know are more deadly to you than strangers. If that doesn't offer some context, then I'll have a rummage and see if I can drag out a hurt feelings form?