GUILTY Australia - Andrew, 45, Rose, 44, & Chantelle Rowe, 16, slain, Kapunda, 8 Nov 2010 #5

[Mrs G Norris]

Which is the exact reason I wish to discuss this case, and the 'why's' because it is so disturbing and difficult to understand. If we wont believe what most likely is the truth (and we are limited in seeing what evidence convinced the state) we will not be able to discuss it or reach any understanding.

 

[sbr]

Actually NO-ONE who knows him well has even commented, either here or in the press, the police have not commented on his character. <modsnip>

To <modsnip: those>, who say they know him well enough to know he is unlikely to stab some-one:

1. what colour are his eyes?
2. were there cuts on his arms?
3. does he do drugs?
4. is his brother older or younger?

Can't answer? perhaps because he is just an acquaintance of an acquaintance <modsnip>.

There is an argument online that took place a month before the murders where it would seem the accused is threatening a local resident. Whilst his comments may be hidden or deleted now it seems pretty clear by the replies that they were not nice. His brother certainly seemed to think that the accused was quite capable of looking after himself. So unless he has another brother with the same first name, there is at least one example out there that is not biased by the murders that show he's not totally sweet and innocent. I am sure those people involved in that argument might have given police some interesting clues to his personality. You also allegedly have another friend on the same medium whom allegedly states that he knew the accused had it in him.

I am assuming the accused is tall, he is 18 and his growth is only just slowing now. He will be "weedy" in stature not because he is weak but because of how much he has grown along with the fact that he was active through playing sports he would've been burning calories like there's no tomorrow.

 

[midsommer]

Just off the top of my head, here is another bizarre imaginary scenario to consider.

AT the time of the murder, the accused is in the house visiting CR.
Unknown murderer(s) enters.
Accused hides in cupboard.
Murders happen.
Accused comes out of cupboard after murderer(s) leave.
Accused surveys scene, gets blood on shoes etc
Accused leaves, henace trail of bloody footprints.

Accused is too terrified that he will become a target of the killer(s) if it becomes known that he was there, so does not tell the police.

This scenario (remembering that I did say it was bizarre) could still produce the same forensic evidence, maybe....

It would explain the missing weapon too

 

[sbr]

Speaking of the house, just curious, who has the awful task of cleaning up the aftermath?

I think it was in the photos on Adelaidenow website that showed everyday professional cleaners there cleaning it up. Urgg I wouldn't want that job!

 

[sbr]

• Agents must disclose home's history
• From murders to noisy neighbours
• Could face $1.1 million fines

REAL estate agents failing to tell prospective home buyers about murders at the premises or unruly neighbours can now be hit with big fines.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/proper...rs/story-e6frfmd0-1225893462501#ixzz16biUPQVF

​

In 2004, two Sydney agents were fined $20,000 after concealing from a buyer the fact that a house had been the scene of a triple murder committed by Sef Gonzales.

What about tenants, do they have the same rights?

 

[sbr]

I know I have asked this before, several times, but so far nobody has shown me a link stating that. Mostly people have just said "well of course they have DNA evidence or the police would not have arrested him", which I find to be an ver unsatisfactory answer.

I have checked back to the day of the arrest and since, and can find no police report that states that the arrest was due to a DNA match. So we are all assuming. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that there was a DNA match with the accused between the interior door and a memorial item, it would be equally undoubtedly true that this information is part of the suppression orders. Further any DNA match would only be an early and preliminary match, as tests can take many weeks to get to the point where the matching result is so strong as to eliminate everyone else in the world, but the accused.

I have copied some links which are interesting - you will have to copy and paste into browser as they appear to be blocked - one relates to Facebook and breaches of suppression orders.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/11/17/3069410.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/11/17/3069462.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVDrjCbm10Q&feature=related

True but by now they should know if the DNA matches or not and thus act accordingly. Actions speak louder then words and he's still in jail.

 

[sbr]

Just off the top of my head, here is another bizarre imaginary scenario to consider.

AT the time of the murder, the accused is in the house visiting CR.
Unknown murderer(s) enters.
Accused hides in cupboard.
Murders happen.
Accused comes out of cupboard after murderer(s) leave.
Accused surveys scene, gets blood on shoes etc
Accused leaves, henace trail of bloody footprints.

Accused is too terrified that he will become a target of the killer(s) if it becomes known that he was there, so does not tell the police.

This scenario (remembering that I did say it was bizarre) could still produce the same forensic evidence, maybe....

It would explain the missing weapon too

So he's going to hide there in the cupboard whilst the girl he allegedly loves is murdered? At the same token if that's the case there wouldn't be blood in the cupboard as remember he is hiding so the murderer doesn't know he's there and two this would also mean he wouldn't have any slashes on his arms (if he does).

 

[sbr]

Another thing that I thought I should mention as I haven't seen mentioned here. When this website was down yesterday, I was looking at the aussie criminals blog and on that thread where there were a lot of interesting comments <modsnip> that, during the night of the arrest, when both her SIL and the accused were being interviewed by the police, the accused made a full confession.

 

[Lera213]

The Police have the Right Person in Custody, that killed those 3 innocent people <modsnip>

 

[singers]

On a personal note I guess this case terrifies me. The concept that a seemingly normal, ordinary, apparently nice young man, would snap and butcher 3 people he cared about... well yes, that scares the <modsnip> out of me.

<modsnip>

<modsnip>

I am totally open to possibilities that he was framed, that he had, help or that some-one else did it, but there needs to be suspects and motives to have a discussion about it and i can't think of any.

John MacEnroe (tennis player) was skinny and wimpy looking and it didn't stop him from being the number 1 tennis player. I really don't think him being quiet and skinny is a defense against murder.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Reading this at the moment:
City of Evil. Sean Fewster.

Amazon.com: City of Evil: The Truth About Adelaide's Strange and Violent Underbelly (9780733624827): Sean Fewster: Books

The book discusses a number of cases that played out in Adelaide over the last 10 years or so, and suppression orders were a major feature of every single one. The author discusses Adelaide's over-use of suppression orders also, and the secretive judicial system there.

 

[midsommer]

It seems you are invested in scenarios that prove the accused innocent no matter how unusual or impossible. This is not aiding the discussion towards understanding the crime IMO.

It is exercising my mind though

Anyway, as you said before, until we know something concrete, how can we discuss the crime and come anyway near ro understanding it?

 

[midsommer]

<modsnip>



At least I state that my scenarios are fictional and imaginery

 

[midsommer]

Reading this at the moment:
City of Evil. Sean Fewster.

Amazon.com: City of Evil: The Truth About Adelaide's Strange and Violent Underbelly (9780733624827): Sean Fewster: Books

The book discusses a number of cases that played out in Adelaide over the last 10 years or so, and suppression orders were a major feature of every single one. The author discusses Adelaide's over-use of suppression orders also, and the secretive judicial system there.

Yep. And that is partly why the law concerning suppression orders was changed!

 

[SnifferDog77]

Reading this at the moment:
City of Evil. Sean Fewster.

Amazon.com: City of Evil: The Truth About Adelaide's Strange and Violent Underbelly (9780733624827): Sean Fewster: Books

The book discusses a number of cases that played out in Adelaide over the last 10 years or so, and suppression orders were a major feature of every single one. The author discusses Adelaide's over-use of suppression orders also, and the secretive judicial system there.

Now that is bizarre! I just started reading this book last night, and was most interested in the suppression orders info. I am fully aware of the other secrets and the like of this state and there will not be much in this book that surprises me, I am sure. I did find the Wakefield thing rather interesting too - had not heard that before. Well done, Mrs G Norris for posting this link! Just about fell off my chair when I saw it a few minutes ago
OH and PS interestingly, my friends in Melbourne lent it to me in the first week of October so it's not like I have hunted it down re this case. So bizarre.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Now that is bizarre! I just started reading this book last night, and was most interested in the suppression orders info. I am fully aware of the other secrets and the like of this state and there will not be much in this book that surprises me, I am sure. I did find the Wakefield thing rather interesting too - had not heard that before. Well done, Mrs G Norris for posting this link! Just about fell off my chair when I saw it a few minutes ago
OH and PS interestingly, my friends in Melbourne lent it to me in the first week of October so it's not like I have hunted it down re this case. So bizarre.

^ so did I, and it is interesting isn't it! Especially in regards to this case, oh and I had friends from Melbourne point it out to me too!!!!

 

[SnifferDog77]

<modsnip>

I am interested in the psychology and also, I want to know if my neighbourhood is safe or if I should still be paranoid if there is someone else involved. In respect to that, I would appreciate knowing from the newspapers/courts. If there is ANY chance of there being someone else responsible for this, the police owe us (the locals) the right to know. This has been a very traumatic episode for many in the area, especially the family and friends. Kapunda has always been an odd place with odd people who have made the news for the wrong reasons (think Liddy etc) but this crime seemed so out of left field. Scary, and so brutal.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Yep. And that is partly why the law concerning suppression orders was changed!

Obviously not very much, or the people who maintain them are a law unto themselves. Media suppression orders seem to be under the discretion of the judge. Why the voters of SA put up with this situation is beyond me.

 

[midsommer]

For those still wondering about SUPPRESSION ORDERS

Laws were changed in 2007
"The South Australian Government introduced significant changes to suppression order laws in April last year.
&#8220;Anecdotal evidence is that the changes are giving the media a firm basis to fight suppression orders that they believe are unnecessary or contrary to open justice. Ultimately, it is up to the court to decide what details must be concealed and for what period, to achieve justice,&#8221; he said.
South Australia compares favourably with other jurisdictions because:
&#8226; the court must recognise the public interest in open justice when considering making a suppression order
&#8226; the court may only issue a suppression order if it&#8217;s satisfied special circumstances exist
&#8226; the media can be heard on an application for a suppression order and can appeal against the issuing of an order
&#8226; the court must review suppression orders at various points in proceedings
&#8226; the Registrar must notify media organisations of orders by email or fax
&#8226; suppression laws are located in one place in the statute book."

REF: http://mickatkinson.com.au/documents/A-G-EndingtheMazeofSuppressions24-7-08.pdf

 

[Mrs G Norris]

There is plenty of room for interpretation in those definitions. Open justice in SA? No, not at all.