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

[Salem]

~Respectfully snipped and BBM ~

but since the supression is basicaly expired, there seems to be alot more leniency towards info given to members of the public

Chaser - where did you get information that the suppression order had expired? Can you provide a link for that information?

Thanks,

Salem

 

[Curiousasacat]

Wonder where Mrs G is today????

 

[nobody11]

~Respectfully snipped and BBM ~

Chaser - where did you get information that the suppression order had expired? Can you provide a link for that information?

Thanks,

Salem

I could be wrong Salem but I am pretty sure over here if it has been a court appointed suppression then it is only the courts that can lift it and there is no expiry date due to the fact things can change and when something is meant to be heard something could come up and not be heard at all. Honestly this is a huge story here and if it was lifted the media would be all over it!

 

[Salem]

I could be wrong Salem but I am pretty sure over here if it has been a court appointed suppression then it is only the courts that can lift it and there is no expiry date due to the fact things can change and when something is meant to be heard something could come up and not be heard at all. Honestly this is a huge story here and if it was lifted the media would be all over it!

I agree. There was a court hearing yesterday and so far, it appears that the media have not covered what happened at that hearing. So I was wondering if Chaser had actually seen a media report or something that led him to believe the suppression order had been lifted.

The suppression order at WS will not be lifted until there is some confirmation that the Court has lifted their order.

Salem

 

[Benny08]

Wonder where Mrs G is today????

She mentioned being on a plane flight yesterday so she's probably busy or not able to freely access the forums right now.

 

[rl85]

I'm curious as why it took so long for the friend that apparantly dropped him off that night to come forward. Not until after the accused was arrested. If what was stated is true, and he did take the accused to the victims house, he would have known that it was a HIGH possibility that it was actually him who did it. His statement earlier could have saved alot of time for the police with searches and DNA tests, etc.
Could be possible he feared the accused??

 

[Laddsy]

Could be possible he feared the accused??

I doubt it more like he was scared of being implicated in some way

 

[nobody11]

I'm curious as why it took so long for the friend that apparantly dropped him off that night to come forward. Not until after the accused was arrested. If what was stated is true, and he did take the accused to the victims house, he would have known that it was a HIGH possibility that it was actually him who did it. His statement earlier could have saved alot of time for the police with searches and DNA tests, etc.
Could be possible he feared the accused??

This is just my opinion!!

Here is how the gossip goes

The night he was arrested and the police had the conference out front of the police station. supposedly the person who claimed to have driven him there shouted out I took him to the house that night.

In all honesty there are flaws in that! That night there was no suppression order what so ever, and in fact the suppression order did not come into effect until around 1pm the next day. They say the media chased him? why is it that this had not been published, it sounds nice and juicy, you know the kinds of things that jurnos love? But that's just my opinion so I really don't think it can be taken as fact but only gossip

 

[singers]

This is just my opinion!!

Here is how the gossip goes

The night he was arrested and the police had the conference out front of the police station. supposedly the person who claimed to have driven him there shouted out I took him to the house that night.

In all honesty there are flaws in that! That night there was no suppression order what so ever, and in fact the suppression order did not come into effect until around 1pm the next day. They say the media chased him? why is it that this had not been published, it sounds nice and juicy, you know the kinds of things that jurnos love? But that's just my opinion so I really don't think it can be taken as fact but only gossip

But they said his name and if there was no suppression order until the next day why didn't they publish his name in the paper? They told the residents his name before they guy suposably admitted to driving him to the house.

I don't know much about suppressions or court cases, how does it help the prosecution to not let any info out? What kind of circumstances do the defense want things supressed?

What good can come of spreading rumors the accused is actually innocent? For the prosecution or the defense? Won't the facts stand alone in court, do rumors count in courts?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Hi guys I am here but in cairns...popping in on my mates iPhone x will be on proper later tonight....interesting day today wasn't it....wish that suppression order would end, but it is only a matter of time

 

[nobody11]

But they said his name and if there was no suppression order until the next day why didn't they publish his name in the paper? They told the residents his name before they guy suposably admitted to driving him to the house.

I don't know much about suppressions or court cases, how does it help the prosecution to not let any info out? What kind of circumstances do the defense want things supressed?

What good can come of spreading rumors the accused is actually innocent? For the prosecution or the defense? Won't the facts stand alone in court, do rumors count in courts?

lol no rumors don't count in court nor does hearsay!

In this case I think it is suppressed for maybe 3 reasons (my opinion only)
1, it is an ongoing investigation so they need to get all facts together to be sure of what their doing (his alibi)
2, Maybe a weak case and protecting his identity until they are sure, because mud sticks
3, protecting his family because they live in a small town

They didn't release his name the night of the press conference, it only come out because some locals knew what had happened before thee conference. So it was town talk and not actually released to the media or they would have printed it. But also the problem in small towns is that someone will say something then someone will repeat it, but add on a snippet of their own opinion. Then before you know it what was originally said is so distorted that it is nothing like the original comment.

Please don't mistake what I say for defending the accused because I am not!! I really have no idea what to think, and come here to see if anyone can make some sense of this for me! Thus far no one has and I am still none the wiser

 

[chaser33]

When I said the supression has almost expired I didnt mean literally lol. My uncle is a lawyer and has told me that now they have an arrest and the suspect is over 18 and has had his name released through the sa media the suppression is inneffective therefore will more than likely be shifted to protects the suspects families details and not his.
Whether true or not I have been told (though the story may have changed down the line) that the driver mentioned the suspect with a bag during a random interview. Wish I could tell u if its 100% true but it would explain alot

 

[midsommer]

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.

Thank you for your brilliant post Mum!

These comments echo my doubts too.

My main concerns have always been pretty simple.

1. The acussed was a close family friend. That is a known fact. He was the best friend of the b/f and was at the party on Saturday night,
On day 1 the police took DNA samples from all known friends and associates.
We hear that people gave DNA samples willingly.
There was a rumour that the acussed did not give DNA.
But surely if a close friend of the family had refused a DNA sample then alarm bells would have rung for the police.
They would have insisted or, if necessary, got a court order, or dragged him off for extensive questioning, none of which happened.
I cannot imagine the police just shrugging their shoulders and moving on if a friend who was at the Saturday night party would not give a DNA swab.
Yet 4 days later the police announced that they did not have a DNA match.

2. The accused acted normally after the murders.
He went to work, visited the shrine and comforted his friends.
Nobody seems to have thought he behaved oddly.
That's some pretty impressive acting.

3. I do not see a motive.
He was a close friend, there is rumour he was a former b/f and perhaps he was still attracted to CR, but there is nothing in his behavour or the b/fs behaviour after the murder to suggest they had a falling out.
It was reported that nothing unusual happened at the Saturday night party.
Unrequited love is suggested as the motive but that seems unlikely to me and does not explain killing her parents too.

4. As soon as he was charged it was reported he claimed an alibi. Now, 2 weeks later, it does not seem the police have stopped their investigations around the town and he suppression order remains in force. I don't know what that means, but something is odd there too.

 

[Rachydoodle]

** definitely just my opinion:

If he has entered an alibi there is going to be one hell of a court case.. At a guess they want Nothing! In the media until trial in feb.. Jurors aren't supposed to be aware of the case/google the 'internet facts' although that will be pretty difficult. I would say yesterday they moved the case to a different court, different time and the media was told that suppression order remains until further notice, stern warnings ect.

I have had to sit in court for uni and it is not at all rare for them to run a hearing different to the schedule..

I'm wondering if the heavy media at the beginning was essentially LE asking the media for help, fleshing out info, possible perps..

All just my opinion but I'm pretty confident we will hear very little.. Perhaps less until Feb.. Funeral tomorrow RIP beautiful family xoxo.

 

[midsommer]

I'm curious as why it took so long for the friend that apparantly dropped him off that night to come forward. Not until after the accused was arrested. If what was stated is true, and he did take the accused to the victims house, he would have known that it was a HIGH possibility that it was actually him who did it. His statement earlier could have saved alot of time for the police with searches and DNA tests, etc.
Could be possible he feared the accused??

I reckon that bit of info (about a friend saying he drove him there) can be classed as rumour.

Reason: the person who posted it said it happened outside the Kapunda police station after Moyle gave his statement to the waiting media. The media were there in force but none reported anything even as innocuous as "after Moyle gave his statement a youth came forward offering more information".

 

[midsommer]

But they said his name and if there was no suppression order until the next day why didn't they publish his name in the paper?

Some online news sources published the name immediately after the arrest but then removed the name when the suppression order was sought.

The problem for online new sources that are linked to a printed newspaper is that they need to embargo all online news until after their paper is printed the next morning. Otherwise they lose paper sales.

Newscorp owned papers (and that's most of them in Australia) enforce this policy of not publishing details online until the printed verson has been distributed.

 

[midsommer]

What kind of circumstances do the defense want things supressed?

I posted some research about that here yesterday.

I don't want to be accussed of spamming, but I think it is important to repeast it.

REF1: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/s...2980/s69a.html

EVIDENCE ACT 1929 - SECT 69A &#8212;Suppression orders

(1) Where a court is satisfied that a suppression order should be made&#8212;

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

(b) to prevent undue hardship&#8212;
(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,


There is no alleged victim alive, there is no witness who was not a party to the crime, and there is no child involved, so part (b) is not the reason.

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

REF2: http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publica...on_orders.html
This is about suppression orders.

"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 &#8220;wholly exceptional&#8221; 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. "


Please note that these are both reputable sites, one government Judicial Commission and the other from the Australasian Legal Information Institute

 

[midsommer]

** definitely just my opinion:

If he has entered an alibi there is going to be one hell of a court case.. At a guess they want Nothing! In the media until trial in feb.. Jurors aren't supposed to be aware of the case/google the 'internet facts' although that will be pretty difficult. I would say yesterday they moved the case to a different court, different time and the media was told that suppression order remains until further notice, stern warnings ect.

I have had to sit in court for uni and it is not at all rare for them to run a hearing different to the schedule..

I'm wondering if the heavy media at the beginning was essentially LE asking the media for help, fleshing out info, possible perps..

All just my opinion but I'm pretty confident we will hear very little.. Perhaps less until Feb.. Funeral tomorrow RIP beautiful family xoxo.

Yes, it is a very peculiar thing to have this suppression order still in place, however, getting a suppression order is not an easy thing in Australia.

REF: http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/1792/damaging-publicity-is-no-reason-not-to-publish.aspx Damaging Publicity is no Reason not to Publish

"to grant a suppression order, it needs to be persuaded that the order is necessary in order to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice"

 

[nobody11]

Love your quote at the bottom lol

 

[midsommer]

Following on re the suppression order...

REF: http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/1...o-publish.aspx
Damaging Publicity is no Reason not to Publish - "to grant a suppression order, (the court) needs to be persuaded that the order is necessary in order to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice"

REF2: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/fop_subs/suppress10.html
say that the court must "give specific grounds for the issue of the order"

The reason given was "The magistrate also ordered the man&#8217;s identity be suppressed while police investigate his alibi"
REF3: (http://www.barossaherald.com.au/new...funeral-date-for-kapunda-victims/2005513.aspx)

So, the reason for the suppression order has been given, as it legally must be given.
The suppression order is to allow the police to investigate the alibi he has offered.

The suppression order cannot be for any other reason without the court stating what that other reason is.

Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that the police are still, 8 days later, investigating the alibi.

I beleive this means that the alibi must be pretty good (or very complicated) and it has not been easy to dismiss the alibi in 8 days of investigation.