Grace Millane

[anonymous-user]

Gary Woodland said:

Greshamst said:

Something else I wasn’t aware of that’s being reported in the guardian, not only did he watch porn whilst she lay dead on his floor but...
“Watched eight clips of child sexual abuse”.

Why on earth was that not mentioned earlier in the case? You'd think that would immediately get a jury on the side of the prosecutors. I hope this creep dies in prison.

That information may possibly have been excluded from the evidence after a legal argument in the absence of the jury, on the grounds that its prejudicial effect could outweigh its circumstantially probative value.

Similarly, if, by way of example, the Defendant had previously been convicted of an offence relating to child porn, or of an offence of sexual violence, then in most circumstances (I said most, not all), that information would not be disclosed to the jury before verdict. This is to protect the principle that the jurors must determine the case on the evidence as to the charge before them.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 22 November 15:12

[Burwood]

Breadvan72 said:

Gary Woodland said:

Greshamst said:

Something else I wasn’t aware of that’s being reported in the guardian, not only did he watch porn whilst she lay dead on his floor but...
“Watched eight clips of child sexual abuse”.

Why on earth was that not mentioned earlier in the case? You'd think that would immediately get a jury on the side of the prosecutors. I hope this creep dies in prison.

That information may possibly have been excluded from the evidence after a legal argument in the absence of the jury. on the grounds that its prejudicial effect could outweigh its circumstantially probative value.

Similarly, if, by way of example, the Defendant had previously been convicted of an offence relating to child porn, or of an offence of sexual violence, then in most circumstances (I said most, not all), that information would not be disclosed to the jury before verdict. This is to protect the principle that the jurors must determine the case on the evidence as to the charge before them.

100%. Can you imagine anything other than 'filthy bd is guilty' running through the jurors minds and holding that view almost regardless of any other evidence. He is indeed a filthy bd and i hope he gets a non parol life term.

How her parents managed the courage to pay tribute/thanks post trial. Very moving and must be suffering unimaginable pain.

[anonymous-user]

A woman I worked with once told me that, if she was asked to serve on a jury, she would vote to acquit everyone, because she did not trust the police, unless the defendant was accused of child abuse, in which case she would always vote to convict.

The jury system, eh? There it is, warts and all.

I still agree with Lord Devlin (a very great judge of the 1950s-60s):

"Trial by jury is the lamp by which we know that freedom lives".

[Burwood]

Sentences to life with min term of 17 years. Still has name suppression but it’s all over the internet

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_i...

[matt2911]

Burwood said:

Sentences to life with min term of 17 years. Still has name suppression but it’s all over the internet

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_i...

The name suppression is a disgrace, look it up everyone. Murderers should not have anonymity their victims cannot have.

Edited by matt2911 on Thursday 20th February 22:39

[The Mad Monk]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

He looks a bit like Jeremy Bamber?

[Dan_1981]

I heard on the radio this morning that he still can't be named but also that the reasons why he can't be named can't be published either??

As mentioned above his name is everywhere - even the Evening Standard has published it...

But what gives? Is this normal in NZ or what's the explanation?

[singlecoil]

Let's hope that the wide publicity surrounding this case encourages women to think twice before allowing themselves to be alone and vulnerable in a private place with men they have only just met.

[Dan_1981]

singlecoil said:

Let's hope that the wide publicity surrounding this case encourages women to think twice before allowing themselves to be alone and vulnerable in a private place with men they have only just met.

Or maybe encourage blokes to not go around murdering folk eh?

[BlackTails]

singlecoil said:

Let's hope that the wide publicity surrounding this case encourages women to think twice before allowing themselves to be alone and vulnerable in a private place with men they have only just met.

So the lesson from this should be that silly little women should not let themselves be murdered.

Perhaps you need to have a bit of a think about that, eh?

[singlecoil]

Dan_1981 said:

singlecoil said:

Let's hope that the wide publicity surrounding this case encourages women to think twice before allowing themselves to be alone and vulnerable in a private place with men they have only just met.

Or maybe encourage blokes to not go around murdering folk eh?

Indeed. But nevertheless just as people should be able to leave their houses and cars unlocked wise people don't.

[Gary Woodland]

singlecoil said:

Let's hope that the wide publicity surrounding this case encourages women to think twice before allowing themselves to be alone and vulnerable in a private place with men they have only just met.

Jesus Christ.

[The Mad Monk]

Dan_1981 said:

I heard on the radio this morning that he still can't be named but also that the reasons why he can't be named can't be published either??

This only applies to New Zealand, surely?

If a publication in the UK, or elsewhere, publishes his name, I don't see what they can do about it.

[Burwood]

Dan_1981 said:

I heard on the radio this morning that he still can't be named but also that the reasons why he can't be named can't be published either??

As mentioned above his name is everywhere - even the Evening Standard has published it...

But what gives? Is this normal in NZ or what's the explanation?

It's a very unpopular law and should be overhauled. It's a slap in the face to all victims. At the time it was put into law a few high profile cases of MPs being accused of some unsavoury crimes-go figure.

In this case it's obvious that he is somehow connected to someone(family?) who thinks they will suffer hardship if their name is published.

[Durzel]

I'm probably asking something very dumb, but what is the significance of him being named? Who gives a crap what his name is? What matters is that he's going to prison for a long time. Is it purely the fact that the NZ system - for whatever reason - withheld it?

I'm struggling to understand the furore over a bit of information that makes no practical difference to anything.

[singlecoil]

^^ Good point.

[Dan_1981]

I think people just want to understand why.

It's not a blanket approach in NZ, it's the same as in the UK - cases where it would impact the victim or cause issues with the perpetrators family etc.

But usually it become clear why it's happening.

In this case even when the name is know it's not clear why his ID would be with-held and then to also with hold the reason for with holding it make people morbidly curious.

Nothing more I don't think.

[Durzel]

singlecoil said:

Let's hope that the wide publicity surrounding this case encourages women to think twice before allowing themselves to be alone and vulnerable in a private place with men they have only just met.

At some point in any relationship whether it's a one night stand from Tinder or a longer one a woman is going to end up having to put herself in a position where she is alone with someone who can physically dominate her. In either circumstance their position is the same - they are at extreme risk.

I don't necessarily even think spending more time with someone is necessarily safer. They might have had bad intentions from the start. Predatory behaviour is common.

At any rate it's impossible to have a moderate conversation about your point because people will be outraged immediately and will be incapable of seeing the wood for the trees, even though the kernel of what you said comes from an place of empathy. If you're a parent you can wish for a world where men aren't tts but the reality is you'd be remiss if you didn't tell your daughters to avoid walking down dark alleyways, etc.

The trap you fell into is that it's a very small mental leap (for some at least) from saying "be careful" to conflating that to mean that you're also saying women shouldn't wear provocative clothes and statements of that sort. Basically, people losing their minds over a position you've never explicitly held. Also, no one likes having to tell their daughters etc to avoid situations because a) they shouldn't have to and b) it acknowledges that the world is a stty place you can't control and shows no signs of improving (in terms of men not being dangerous).

[singlecoil]

Durzel said:

...The trap you fell into is that it's a very small mental leap (for some at least) from saying "be careful" to conflating that to mean that you're also saying women shouldn't wear provocative clothes and statements of that sort. Basically, people losing their minds over a position you've never explicitly held. Also, no one likes having to tell their daughters etc to avoid situations because a) they shouldn't have to and b) it acknowledges that the world is a stty place you can't control and shows no signs of improving (in terms of men not being dangerous).

Good points but I didn't fall into any trap, it's the people who misinterpreted what I said who did that.

The idea that men shouldn't attack women (or for that matter anyone) is one that has been a basic principle in civilised societies for many centuries. And yet it still happens and no doubt will continue to do so.

[sospan]

I compare this non reveal of a defendant found guilty to the orchestrated and press invited arrest of Cliff Richard who was subsequently cleared.
Looks like opposite ends of the spectrum.
My view is that the Cliff Richard circus show was totally wrong whilst the NZ case still has a possible appeal stage and, as yet, we do not know the reasons for keeping the non disclosure in place. It is a case of wait and see and speculation avoided until that later stage.