No person can consent to their own death, or to injury to cause death

[Dangertime]

Verdict on the Grace Millane case - murder

Justice Moore to the jury:
"Consent is not relevant to murder. No person under New Zealand law can consent to their own death, or to injury to cause death" and Justice Moore tells the jury that "with all that in mind, they have to answer the question - Did Grace consent to be strangled by the accused to the degree and duration of force applied to her neck?"

(Quoting from the live coverage)

www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/117069680/grace-millane-murder-trial-latest-updates

'Oh well I mean if she liked a bit of pain then that totally sheds a different light on what he did to her.

D'uh....obviously'

OMG fucking 'seriously' back at you.

Her injuries were horrendous. She is DEAD. The fact that she may have liked a bit of pain is just a massive distraction from the enormity of what he did. Fucking fucking hell.

Nice to see posters saying yes women can consent to being brutalised and killed. If the man who does it has a hard on.

I'm really shocked.

Thru argued she was to off her face to say stop or anything iirc.

And yet strangely the fact that makes it rape in law was strangely not on the table.

He had it both ways. She consented to it. B although she was too fucked to consent.

Jury says well ok seems kosher.

I somehow completely missed the case of Natalie Connoly’s brutal death and I am horrified that this man all but got away with it. How can this be justice? 😔

No, in law no-one can consent to being brutalised or killed. Have you really not understood this ?

'The evidence appeared to be there (although not gone into any depth in the Judge's remarks) that they both enjoyed sex mixed with pain. If you are going to have a fair trial, then is there any option but to look back and see what she liked ? Coyness has no place in any trial.'

'Oh well I mean if she liked a bit of pain then that totally sheds a different light on what he did to her.

D'uh....obviously. Are you new to this case ?'

I am only responding to what you are writing. Your words speak for themselves.

Especially the 'D'uh'. In the context you used it.

You imply she asked for him to squirt bleach on her face. You have no way of knowing that.

I find your posts shocking tbh.

TrySleeping ask sawdust how he all but got away with it.

They are keen to explain that liking a bit of pain in sex is major mitigation to the things he did to her up to her death, even when she is not able to give her side, and even though it's accepted she was too wasted to consent to anything.

If you find what they say rather, erm, interesting, they will say you are stupid. D'uh!!!

Sawdust I’m getting a feeling from your posts that you think justice has been achieved for these dead women because;

• a fair trial was had
• they asked for it so that changes things

You are also implying that posters have not understood the legal mechanisms here. I’d just like to be really clear and say how despicable I find your attitude.

Natalie Connolly had countless horrific injuries, including the one which caused the massive haemorrhage which killed her. That injury was caused because John Broadhurst inserted a trigger bottle of cleaning fluid into her vagina. A crucial part of his defence was that she had asked him to do this. Can you explain to me why it is not possible to consent to a punch in the face, but it is possible (after drinking and taking drugs all day) to consent to a large number (I seem to remember 30+) of different injuries including a spray bottle in her vagina which caused lacerations when it was pulled out?

I don’t understand why you think we can’t consent to this under UK law when it is clear to me that the courts think you can.

OMG the poster repeating how a law stating "you can't consent to your own death during sex games" is being really callous implying it might impact laws around euthanasia.

Euthanasia is a very specific thing. You need to be terminally ill. You need to have a cronic illness. It has to pass through an entire bureaucratic process.

You're not going to be going off travelling, having the time of your life meeting people, in good health and suddenly go "Hi Netherlands, I fancy getting killed can your state sort it out for me by hooking me up with a strangulation sex murder? Ta!"

It's completely different.

Natalie Connolly's post mortem showed that she died of a combination of high levels of alcohol and blunt trauma injuries. The post mortem showed that she had 40 horrific injuries when she died. Including internal injuries from having a plastic trigger bottle of carpet cleaner inserted into her vagina.

Broadhurst said that she had consented to those injuries because she liked rough sex. She was apparently able to consent despite the fact that her alcohol levels were so high that they contributed to her death.

He got 3 years and 8 months.

Badger Ahead of determining whether justice was done in this case, we need to agree how Natalie Connolly died. Above you wrote...

....the massive haemorrhage which killed her. That injury was caused because John Broadhurst inserted a trigger bottle of cleaning fluid into her vagina

My only information about this trial is from the Judge's sentencing remarks. There's nothing in those remarks that speaks of a fatal haemorrhage. So, a simple question, what is your source as to the facts of this case ?

To be continued tomorrow morning, goodnight.

I think the post mortem concluded that she died from a combination of her injuries and alcohol poisoning, but it was not clear what actually killed her.

www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2018/11/28/victim-suffered-potentially-fatal-blood-loss-jury-told/

A midwife wrote the Attorney General to say that in her expert opinion, Natalie couldn't have survived the bleeding caused by the carpet cleaner bottle without medical help.

womansplaceuk.org/justice-for-natalie-connolly/

Sawdust I have no idea where you have got the idea that there was 'no evidence' that Broadhurst caused her injuries, or that she died from her injuries. His whole defence was that she sustained the injuries that contributed to her death, because she liked 'rough sex' and had consented to those injuries.

Sawdust, do you have an explanation legality wise for the contradiction of Natalie Connelly being too drunk/doped up to stop him (and to the extent that it was cited as contributing towards her death), and the fact that legally one cannot consent to sex (making the "consensual" sex they had become rape) when under such a significant amount of alcohol/drugs?

Surely you can agree with the interpretation that if he was found to not be liable for her death for that reason, then he then becomes liable for a rape conviction?

If you are very drunk and become injured, the clotting factors would be reduced and an injury that would not kill you usually may then do so. I don't know how this would be recorded as cause of death though, whether both joint/alcohol top, injury>bleeding second/injury top, alcohol contributing to bleeding second.

Either way though, my first post stands - if she's drunk enough for it to contribute to CoD, she's too drunk to consent

The more I think about this Natalie Connelly case, the more I wonder about the fact this man is/was a multi millionaire. Has he paid someone off. I just can’t believe this!!!

TrySleeping it is one of the most sickening examples of this oh-so-popular defence. When I think about what she went through it makes me want to weep.

But he was convicted, which means that the verdict doesn't say that she did, or necessarily can, consent to that kind of activity. The fact that it was put forward as a an argument doesn't mean that it's what the law says. The defence is allowed to make any argument they think might work and in some cases that is going to be a shitty one, because there is no good one available.

It seems to come down in a lot of instances to figuring out just what someone can say yes to. Some things are clear one way or the other, but where they meet in the middle is less clear.

As far as things like the can though - I would not assume that something creating terrible injuries means the person didn't agree to whatever it was or that there was an intent to cause that injury. It makes sense that would be the case on the face of it, but if you've ever spent much time in an ER, people come in quite often with pretty terrible and self-inflicted sex injuries, often from things they have tried to insert inside themselves. Generally because they didn't realise what was going to happen. In a case like this one with so many injuries and someone so drunk, that doesn't seem a plausible explanation. But so far as saying no one would think something like that was a good idea, it might be more than you'd guess.

Cut to the chase goosefoot.

That was a lot of words, tell us what you are actually getting at regarding Natalie Connolly.

No need to pussyfoot around.

Sorry - is Goosefoot trying to defend the outcome of the killing of Natalie Connolly?
Every now and again there's a case that is just indefensible - and imho - this is one of them. Vile .

I read it as goose saying that if it were the one injury, it would be plausible as an accident as people do insert stupid things into themselves to see if it’s pleasurable (though ime that’s usually men sticking things up their arse!). However given the extent of her injuries, and that he left her there, you can see why it wasn’t a successful defence.

Sawdust I have no idea where you have got the idea that there was 'no evidence' that Broadhurst caused her injuries, or that she died from her injuries

Go back and read what I have said, you have misquoted me.

His whole defence was that she sustained the injuries that contributed to her death, because she liked 'rough sex' and had consented to those injuries

No it wasn’t as I read the remarks. My understanding was that his defense was that he did not kill her. See para 23 onward of the sentence remarks as to the law on consent in such cases. The Judge clearly has a grip on it. BTW Bear in mind that from R v Brown, consent cannot be given to its injuries from ABH and above.

Sawdust, do you have an explanation legality wise for the contradiction of Natalie Connelly being too drunk/doped up to stop him (and to the extent that it was cited as contributing towards her death), and the fact that legally one cannot consent to sex (making the "consensual" sex they had become rape) when under such a significant amount of alcohol/drugs?

The Court is being asked to look at the events throughout the evening when she died. It seems that they were both very drunk. They arrived home drunk and kept on drinking and (in the context of sex) at some stage a point will be reached when consent “in law” can no longer be given through intoxication, but consent “in fact” is still / or may still be there.

But, as to the injuries, at no stage of this evening could Natalie consent “in law” to any injury from ABH onwards – just cant happen “in law”, so when Broadhurst does so, he is acting unlawfully. But “in fact” she may have been consenting to the injuries. The lack of consent “in law” is a question as to whether or not there is a defense – as she cannot provide consent “in Law”, there can not be a defense. But if “in fact” she was consenting, this can then be relevant to the sentence once guilt is established. Some question, different objectives.

If you want to discuss rape – at what point of the evening does consent “in law” fade to zero through intoxication AND did they have sex beyond that point.

Same not Some

But “in fact” she may have been consenting to the injuries.

How could she have been consenting to the injuries when 'in fact' she had so much alcohol in her system that it contributed to her death? It would be impossible surely?

The 'facts' are, he beat the shit out of her and then left her to die.