GUILTY Australia - Aiia Masarwe, 21, Israeli exchange student, murdered, Melbourne, Jan 2019 *ARREST*

[jessicalouise]

I also wonder how much poor impulse control comes into play? Their immaturity and self centredness.

 

[they'll get you]

I also wonder how much poor impulse control comes into play? Their immaturity and self centredness.

All of the above.

 

[they'll get you]

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/na...t-in-aiia-maasarwe-death-20190120-p50sho.html


'The "outstanding" work of a local police officer who recognised a distinctive cap and T-shirt from the scene of Aiia Maasarwe's death led to the early arrest of murder suspect Codey Herrmann.

But a massive political glitch could have jeopardised the initial homicide investigation.

Mr Herrmann's arrest two days after the Arab-Israeli exchange student's death came when a police officer stationed at Heidelberg recognised a "1986" cap and two-tone grey T-shirt left outside the shopping centre where Ms Maasarwe's body was found.'


read more at the website.

But a massive political glitch could have jeopardised the initial homicide investigation.

I wonder what kind of Political glitch might that be?
His aboriginality? His foster upbringing? His drug habits or his political aspirations?
I find this interesting.

 

[Bohemian]

Aiia 'never felt safe' on Melbourne road where she died: sister

 

[they'll get you]

My adult children have aboriginal friends who have excelled in their education and employment and what wonderful accomplished people they all are.

One thing for sure people and I’ll tell anyone that they are not safe walking alone in any of our cities, male or female.

 

[Trooper]

mucked up post.

 

[Trooper]

But a massive political glitch could have jeopardised the initial homicide investigation.

I wonder what kind of Political glitch might that be?
His aboriginality? His foster upbringing? His drug habits or his political aspirations?
I find this interesting.

How I read it was.. I don't think it had anything to do with Herrmann per se, or any one person, regardless of race or ethnicity, or gender, the opposition voted against taking people's DNA upon arrest. As it stands , DNA is taken when convicted.

But the Government of Vic ( Andrews ) wanted to change that to a more stringent criteria, that of being arrested, ( which is before one is actually charged, much less convicted) and there is a strong and valid point to be made for that statute. There is also a strong and valid point of civil liberties , it's a matter of freight and public appreciation.

It comes up again for another vote, now that Andrews won a majority in the State gov. As it stands until then, ( the vote is in April, I think ) one's DNA is still only allowed to be retrieved on conviction.

I think but I am not sure, that situation is on conviction for anything, drunk driving, theft, fraud, assault, drunk in charge of a lawn mower ( as happened to my friend ) not just a conviction for major crimes like rape and arson and murder

 

[Bohemian]

But a massive political glitch could have jeopardised the initial homicide investigation.

I wonder what kind of Political glitch might that be?
His aboriginality? His foster upbringing? His drug habits or his political aspirations?
I find this interesting.

I think Sly is writing about the fact that DNA samples can only be taken when someone is convicted of a crime or by court order in Victoria, rather than when they’re arrested in other states. Obviously, the suspect’s DNA is not on file. This may have meant that Aiia’s alleged rapist and murderer may not have been identified, if not for the police officer who recognised his hat and shirt.

From Troops’ link (above):

‘Under proposed legislation that stalled in the upper house shortly before November’s state election, his DNA would have been collected at his previous arrest and allegedly would have provided an immediate match to samples found at the crime scene.

The legislation was first set to be tabled in Parliament in June. Police Minister Lisa Neville said at the time the powers would enable police to quickly identify offenders, which would result in faster arrests and help reduce reoffending.

There are 11,000 unsolved crimes where unidentified DNA samples have been found and stored.
Under the proposed legislation - designed to align Victoria with the laws in other states - DNA samples would be taken on arrest. At present, samples can only be taken on conviction and by court order.’

 

[they'll get you]

mucked up post.

 

[Trooper]

there ought to be a law that prevents schools selling education in Melbourne, and Sydney etc, that claims that it is 'safe'.

It is safe only in comparison, and that comparison can only be demonstrated in percentages, but if some loser decides to murder you as soon as you get off a tram, your safety is 100% demolished. If your safety measurement is 90% , that 90 becomes 0 , -0 , really. Just like that.

These schools are selling 'safe' as an emotional buzz word, yet not providing any of the slightest bit of protective outfit at all.

 

[Bohemian]

How I read it was.. I don't think it had anything to do with Herrmann per se, or any one person, regardless of race or ethnicity, or gender, the opposition voted against taking people's DNA upon arrest. As it stands , DNA is taken when convicted.

But the Government of Vic ( Andrews ) wanted to change that to a more stringent criteria, that of being arrested, ( which is before one is actually charged, much less convicted) and there is a strong and valid point to be made for that statute. There is also a strong and valid point of civil liberties , it's a matter of freight and public appreciation.

It comes up again for another vote, now that Andrews won a majority in the State gov. As it stands until then, ( the vote is in April, I think ) one's DNA is still only allowed to be retrieved on conviction.

I think but I am not sure, that situation is on conviction for anything, drunk driving, theft, fraud, assault, drunk in charge of a lawn mower ( as happened to my friend ) not just a conviction for major crimes like rape and arson and murder

Snap Troops

 

[Trooper]

One of the big objections nation wide to the collecting of one's DNA on arrest is the perceived untrustworthiness of any police in AU to then dispose of that DNA when you are found to be not guilty of the crime they charged you with, and this happens , not as much percentagewise as one is found guilty, but that adds up to a lot of people.

 

[Trooper]

Snap Troops

 

[Waverider]

One of the big objections nation wide to the collecting of one's DNA on arrest is the perceived untrustworthiness of any police in AU to then dispose of that DNA when you are found to be not guilty of the crime they charged you with, and this happens , not as much percentagewise as one is found guilty, but that adds up to a lot of people.

Presumably, though, they actually want to collect and keep DNA of anyone arrested, guilty or not, to put in the database?

 

[Trooper]

My position , for what it's worth , on this is.. there are certain crimes, certain types of people who are arrested on suspicion of certain kind of crimes, and police know these fine distinctions very well,...

For example = Herrmann made a deep impression on the copper from Heidelberg 4 days before the murder. He had occasion to , obviously, accost Herrmann and speak with him, ( unless it was part of his bail conditions to front up to Heidi police station, why not the Watsonia one? ) and this senior Constable clocked Herrmann as memorable.

For whatever reason. Coppers instinct.

There could be, in law, a provision made for that. That some people , arrested and bailed for some sorts of crime that sets off warning bells should have their DNA taken at that point in the process.

 

[Trooper]

Presumably, though, they actually want to collect and keep DNA of anyone arrested, guilty or not, to put in the database?

yes they do.. They want to do exactly that, and that has strong validity. And it would go against a coppers nature to have to dispose of such valuable intel, just because it might affect someone's civil liberties down the line.

There is a lot to be said for a voluntary data base. And that has been done in AU, and in other places in the world, where a whole community gets behind the investigation into a crime ( one in South A, a small town, a rape of an elderly woman , the entire town turned up to be DNA'd, and the crime that actually was the first time DNA was used, Colin Pitchfork in England , same process )

It's the involuntary collection that sticks in the craw of the general public. And that sticking of the craw is just as valid , really.

 

[they'll get you]

Presumably, though, they actually want to collect and keep DNA of anyone arrested, guilty or not, to put in the database?

Good idea in my opinion as it comes in handy if any relatives of that person should do wrong.

 

[they'll get you]

This photo of Aiia was taken at 7.56pm, just hours before she died. The group posed using the tips of their fingers to make love hearts.

In the hours before she died, a smiling Aiia Maasarwe beamed as she stood with a group of new friends she had met to practise speaking in English.

She sat at Flagstaff Gardens in Melbourne’s CBD with 35 others at 7pm on Tuesday as part of the Meetup group which encourages people new to Melbourne to talk in English.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...bd-park-to-learn-english-20190118-p50s4q.html

 

[Trooper]

Good idea in my opinion as it comes in handy if any relatives of that person should do wrong.

like the bloke recently caught in California for umpteen murders... directly because people who want to know their own DNA place themselves and their entire antecedents, and offspring and any family connected to them to the degree of 6th cousin on a public data base.

It has merit, in many ways. Who owns DNA ? do we own our own or is it a public commodity? the entire population of Iceland sold it's DNA base, linking them back to 8 centuries of forbears , and god alone knows how many in th future.

Should police have access to everyone's DNA? should we have to give it up upon getting a drivers licence? who is in charge of the national DNA data base? surely not a politician! ( should we have an opt out organ donation system like the French? Yes, we should ) ..

It's an old conundrum and it has so many variables, there are examples of it being a real breakthrough in crime, and if only for that , that ought to make it a slam dunk... but there are downsides, too.

 

[Bohemian]

like the bloke recently caught in California for umpteen murders... directly because people who want to know their own DNA place themselves and their entire antecedents, and offspring and any family connected to them to the degree of 6th cousin on a public data base.

It has merit, in many ways. Who owns DNA ? do we own our own or is it a public commodity? the entire population of Iceland sold it's DNA base, linking them back to 8 centuries of forbears , and god alone knows how many in th future.

Should police have access to everyone's DNA? should we have to give it up upon getting a drivers licence? who is in charge of the national DNA data base? surely not a politician! ( should we have an opt out organ donation system like the French? Yes, we should ) ..

It's an old conundrum and it has so many variables, there are examples of it being a real breakthrough in crime, and if only for that , that ought to make it a slam dunk... but there are downsides, too.

This is the bloke in CA that was caught via a familial DNA profile match:

DNA profiles from ancestry websites helped identify the Golden State Killer suspect