GUILTY Australia - Andrew, 45, Rose, 44, & Chantelle Rowe, 16, slain, Kapunda, 8 Nov 2010 #4

[Beagle]

It is almost like nothing ever happened ....... so weird.

 

[nobody11]

It is almost like nothing ever happened ....... so weird.

Yes I am finding that so weird too!

 

[mum73]

The silence makes me feel that both sides have agreed to the suppression order and there was no need for further discussion regarding the release of information.

Therefore, you can only assume there is a legitimate reason for the order to be in place, and quite frankly given the lack of supported information out there, it really appears that those who are "in the know" are complying with it.

Remembering that there has been a great deal of misinformation posted in these threads (thankfully much has now been removed), we really have to keep in mind what the known and substantiated facts are...unfortunately there aren't many, but they are all readily available on the various AU news sites.

I honestly don't feel that the sleuthing has so far uncovered anything apart from some friendships and the disbelief that this seemingly ordinary teenager could have committed these crimes. There has been so much false "inside information" provided I am extremely hesitant to take ANY at face value <modsnip>.

I came to this site as I was under the impression that it would be a good forum to have conversation with like minded people regarding the complexities and curiosities of this case. <modsnip>

...but back to these conversations. Like many people, I think my curiosity is peaked primarily by the suppression order and reference to an alibi. I am of the understanding that he has a strong legal team, so I would think this is not just some frivolous claim. I have seen a a few suggestions as to why it might be in place and wanted to add some of my thoughts:

The alibi??? Is it possible that the accused has an alibi for the time that the screams were heard? I'm not suggesting that this would make him innocent, but maybe there was confusion to what/when screams were heard, therefore creating a shred of doubt. If this is a matter still be sorted, there could be reason for argument from both sides to suppress information.

Insanity??? There was a case here a year or so ago when a man physically and sexually attacked his toddler son until the point he was on life support.

Father fronts court over toddler's alleged attempted murder http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/27/2553028.htm?site=news

The case appeared to be big news and then vanished from the media. No suppression order was made public. From what I gather the man was found unfit to stand trial, so nothing more was reported. Could be the same here, but doesn't explain the alibi.

"Was there when the attack took place, but left with the knife??" I won't go into specifics as to why I put this one here. I do have a scenario in mind, but it is purely conjecture on my part.

Please understand I am not trying to claim the guilt nor innocence of the accused. I am just hoping to generate discussion based on the oddities of this case.

 

[seekingjustice**]

It is almost like nothing ever happened ....... so weird.

I know, talk about shutting down a story, you would expect this to be headline news... I can't figure out what the reason is behind the supression order!

 

[CelticGal]

also this one..i will delete the names and leave initials
LC R.I.P chantelle Marie Rowe u may be gone but never forgotten - ur friend <modsnip: Accused>......November 10 at 7:36pm · LikeUnlike · Comment

Makes me sick if he is guilty :furious:

 

[CelticGal]

One thing I was disappointing to read was the threats that the accused mother is getting. Two wrongs don't make a right let alone the fact that she is not the one being accused of murder.

Well said. I think people forget what this mother and brother must be going through. I know when my own children have disappointed me (and in only little ways compared to this) I have felt like my heart was breaking. So can only imagine how this mother must be feeling... Their family has been torn apart by the accussed actions as well

 

[singers]

From the Aussie Criminals blog I found this link to info about suppression orders
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea192980/s69a.html

EVIDENCE ACT 1929 - SECT 69A
69A—Suppression orders


(1) Where a court is satisfied that a suppression order should be made—


(a) to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice; or


(b) to prevent undue hardship—


(i) to an alleged victim of crime; or


(ii) to a witness or potential witness in civil or criminal proceedings who is not a party to those proceedings; or


(iii) to a child,

You can read more if you are interested.

I think we can dismiss the reasons in part (b) as there is no alleged victim alive, there is no witness who was not a party to the crime, and there is no child involved.

Therefore, the ongoing reason for a suppresion order must be (a) "to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice".

Then I found this site http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/civil/non-publication_and_suppression_orders.html about suppression orders.

Here is a bit of it

"In most cases, non-publication orders are not granted to avoid the possibility that pre-trial publicity may prejudice an immanent trial. The risk that the publicity may cause the trial to be unfair would have to be “wholly exceptional” to satisfy the test of necessity. Even in cases which have attracted intense media attention non-publication orders have been refused. "

then further down

"Mere belief that an order is necessary is not sufficient, there must be some material before the court upon which it can reasonably reach the conclusion that it is necessary to make an order prohibiting publication. "

So I am still at a loss to know what material could be before the court that makes it reasonable to impose a suppression order.

If we assume (as some here do) that the police have compelling forensic evidence that proves the person they arrested was the killer, the suppression order makes no sennse at all, given the strict guidelines.

The police have stated there was only one killer, so the suppression order is not to protect a third party.

The only reason I can see for the suppression order is actually to protect the person they have arrested because the do not have sufficient evidence to be absolutely certain they have arrested the right person.

Perhaps it was to do with his last minute alibi. Perhaps he implicated other perhaps innocent people in some way. Could this be the reason he left it to the last minute to ensure a suppression?

 

[chaser33]

i just wrote up a massively long paragraph containing info from a reputable source about the murders, suspect, evidence, but for some reason i was logged off and info was deleted :banghead::furious::banghead:

 

[Salem]

i just wrote up a massively long paragraph containing info from a reputable source about the murders, suspect, evidence, but for some reason i was logged off and info was deleted :banghead::furious::banghead:

chaser33 - when you log in, be sure to check the little box by your name that says something like "keep me logged in" otherwise you will automatically get logged off if too much time elapses without activity.

Hope that helps,

Salem

 

[chaser33]

how can a supression be in place when the FEDERAL police alongside the FEDERAL government gave interstate media the "ok" the identify the accused on footage shown in SA? contradictory.

the suppression was to ensure his address, number, relatives details, social network pages not be available for the media or public to stop potential retaliation against his family and friends.

and thats from a very reputable, trusted source

 

[chaser33]

chaser33 - when you log in, be sure to check the little box by your name that says something like "keep me logged in" otherwise you will automatically get logged off if too much time elapses without activity.

Hope that helps,

Salem

hehe i didnt even know that..thanks heaps

 

[seekingjustice**]

how can a supression be in place when the FEDERAL police alongside the FEDERAL government gave interstate media the "ok" the identify the accused on footage shown in SA? contradictory.

the suppression was to ensure his address, number, relatives details, social network pages not be available for the media or public to stop potential retaliation against his family and friends.and thats from a very reputable, trusted source

BBM- thanks chaser. I can't imagine there would be very many people in Kapunda that do not already know who the 'accused' is though.

Just expanding on the above reason, but I wonder if the suppresion order is in place to hide the details of how horrific the actual killing was, due to the fact, if that information was released, there possibly would be retaliation?

 

[chaser33]

BBM- thanks chaser. I can't imagine there would be very many people in Kapunda that do not already know who the 'accused' is though.

Just expanding on the above reason, but I wonder if the suppresion order is in place to hide the details of how horrific the actual killing was, due to the fact, if that information was released, there possibly would be retaliation?

THEORY: The family and close friends already know the graphic details of the murders, in kapunda everyone knows everyone, so the police dont hide details from the people concerned. The suppression order was originally given to kapunda residents to not spread his personal details and relatives to the media, as some residents where offered money for such information. but to avoid descrimination they generalised it to south australia as a whole.

 

[nobody11]

Chaser I am a local in Kappy, I have heard so many stories and they all conflict each other. I honestly don't know what to think or believe.

 

[chaser33]

One thing I find strange with this, there has been so much controversy over the suppression order, I really couldn't see one of the detectives flapping their gums about it?

not so much flapping their gums, but id say out of respect to the family and closest friends if they asked for details id say they would get details. not too sure if thats how it was/is in this scenario, but in eudunda two people were killed when joyriding, my gf is a friend of one of the victim, she asked how she died and they told her everything.....literally everything

 

[nobody11]

not so much flapping their gums, but id say out of respect to the family and closest friends if they asked for details id say they would get details. not too sure if thats how it was/is in this scenario, but in eudunda two people were killed when joyriding, my gf is a friend of one of the victim, she asked how she died and they told her everything.....literally everything

But the public were also told how it happened. That was such a tragedy!!

This case is a little different with the suppression order. The family is this case has not been told everything, one thing for me that proves that is they would not have gasped in court if they knew everything. I am not trying to discredit you or anything nor am I sticking up for the accused I just don't see someone high up in the case telling anyone the facts of what happened

 

[chaser33]

But the public were also told how it happened. That was such a tragedy!!

This case is a little different with the suppression order. The family is this case has not been told everything, one thing for me that proves that is they would not have gasped in court if they knew everything. I am not trying to discredit you or anything nor am I sticking up for the accused I just don't see someone high up in the case telling anyone the facts of what happened

RUMOR: i definately appreciate your oppinions on the issue. im not certain that even the details ive been given are everything, there may be something the court has revealed about the case that no one knew, not even the family, i mean, until the court appearance the family was unaware of the rape charge against him.
info would get leaked by every detective involved, i mean, it plays on there mind all day, they go home tell their partners and talk about it, their partners tell someone else etc etc.
<modsnip> who probably shouldnt be revealing the details,but since the supression is basicaly expired, there seems to be alot more leniency towards info given to members of the public

 

[nobody11]

I could be wrong, but the suppression order was not given an expiry date and can not be lifted unless the courts say so.

Also as gruesome as this case is, they are trained professionals and would have counseling to deal with these issues so they don't have to talk to non police people to vent and get their frustrations out?

 

[Curiousasacat]

Chaser, may I ask how you found out about the accused "taking a bag of clothes". It could also mean he could have fit a knife in the bag. I am guessing the friend who dropped him off was probably driving a white tray back?? This friend must also be feeling really upset.

 

[Curiousasacat]

Is it still there??? I cant see anything

Hi Laddy, did you find it? It's still there, one of the last posts.