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

[singers]

Initially I was stuck by 2 things that I cannot understand and that make me wonder about his guilt. One is that people who do personally know him seem united in believing that this crime is not in his nature or character.

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>, 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>.

 

[singers]

Mmm, totally agree with you about the house.
Gosh, what could the owner do?
He/she won't even be likely to be able to sell it except maybe at a rock bottom price.
I wonder if there is any sort of financial compensation for that sort of situation?

Yeah even Harriet street now has a bad name, gotta feel sorry for the owners.

 

[singers]

is this thread posting in the right order or is my computer going funny?

 

[rl85]

Mmm, totally agree with you about the house.
Gosh, what could the owner do?
He/she won't even be likely to be able to sell it except maybe at a rock bottom price.
I wonder if there is any sort of financial compensation for that sort of situation?

I wonder?
I'm trying to find out about Australian Law, and if you have to disclose if someone was murdered in a house you were trying to sell or rent. Can't find anything yet.
But I do remember a story from a few years ago where a son murdered his parents and sister. The house was sold without the new owner knowing that the murders took place in the house. I think he may have sued or something...which then introduced a new law saying that information of a murder in a house had to be disclosed to the new owner. Does anyone know anything about this?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

So even if the DNA does come in it will be dismissed? That's good to know up front I guess....

Not exactly Mrs G.
It is a Victorian decision, not SA, and it applies if the ONLY evidence is based on DNA.

*snipped

Just pointing out how DNA can be at a crime scene but may not be the killer's DNA.

I didn't mean dismissed by the courts, <modsnip>

 

[rl85]

is this thread posting in the right order or is my computer going funny?

Yep, mine is all jumbled up as well

 

[midsommer]

I also wonder about the actual owners of the house. They rented this house....can you imagine the poor people who own it? No one would ever want to rent it again, and no one would want to buy it! If I owned it, I wouldnt even want to enter the house again!

Mmm, totally agree with you about the house.
Gosh, what could the owner do?
He/she won't even be likely to be able to sell it except maybe at a rock bottom price.
I wonder if there is any sort of financial compensation for that sort of situation?

 

[Cyclone82]

I was also thinking about the house too. I wouldn't even want to walk inside it either. I bet that becomes another one of the many haunted places in Kapunda and adds to the fact its already known as the most haunted town in Australia.

 

[midsommer]

I'm sure the police believe they have arrested the right person, just not sure I believe it

 

[Curiousasacat]

I wonder?
I'm trying to find out about Australian Law, and if you have to disclose if someone was murdered in a house you were trying to sell or rent. Can't find anything yet.
But I do remember a story from a few years ago where a son murdered his parents and sister. The house was sold without the new owner knowing that the murders took place in the house. I think he may have sued or something...which then introduced a new law saying that information of a murder in a house had to be disclosed to the new owner. Does anyone know anything about this?

I remember that.I think you are correct as I also heard something about a new law and needing to disclose that information.
I was thinking of this the other night. A thought I had was that the owners be given market value for the home and they bulldoze it and replace it with a "green space" or a little memorial to the family.

 

[MissedCalling]

Here is a reminder of why the prosecution applied for a suppression order.

Rebecca Lawley, prosecuting, asked that the man's identity be suppressed.

"The basis for that application is that police are conducting inquiries in relation to an alibi which has been proffered," she said.

"It's also put that identification procedures may result."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/its-facebook-justice-for-alleged-killer/story-e6frf7l6-1225955277188

 

[Beagle]

I'm sure the police believe they have arrested the right person, just not sure I believe it

If not him then who do you think it could be? There haven't been many possibilities that haven't already been ruled out as far as I know.

 

[amzberry]

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

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Here is a reminder of why the prosecution applied for a suppression order.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...r-alleged-killer/story-e6frf7l6-1225955277188

Suppression orders are the norm for South Australian courts, there is no deep meaning in regards to the value of an alibi to be garnished from it.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

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

Someone like these guys http://www.ntcsc.com.au/

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I remember that.I think you are correct as I also heard something about a new law and needing to disclose that information.
I was thinking of this the other night. A thought I had was that the owners be given market value for the home and they bulldoze it and replace it with a "green space" or a little memorial to the family.

• 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.

 

[MissedCalling]

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

Page 36 of the Adelaide now photo gallery states commercial cleaners have been hired to clean up the interior of the house.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/galleries/gallery-e6frecgc-1225949829510?page=36

What a job!

 

[KG1]

Fair enough, but sorry, it was not clear to me people were only speculating.

Patroller - can you show me anhy link where the police, or even just the medi,a actually say the arrest was based on DNA. please?

I have looked but not found it stated anywhere that his arrest was due to DNA evidence.

People are, imo, tying together 2 bits of information that may or may not be related:
1. police announced they had DNA of an unknown male
and
2. man was arrested.

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 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.[/QUOTE]


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

[video=youtube;sVDrjCbm10Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVDrjCbm10Q&feature=related[/video]

 

[KG1]

I wonder?
I'm trying to find out about Australian Law, and if you have to disclose if someone was murdered in a house you were trying to sell or rent. Can't find anything yet.
But I do remember a story from a few years ago where a son murdered his parents and sister. The house was sold without the new owner knowing that the murders took place in the house. I think he may have sued or something...which then introduced a new law saying that information of a murder in a house had to be disclosed to the new owner. Does anyone know anything about this?

This link will explain the law in Australia in relation to disclosure - commenced in July 2010, as there was a big problem with a property in Sydney, where 4 members of one family were brutally murdered and real estate agents did not disclose. At that time, there was no law stating that disclosure was required. Now there is, and in that case, the purchasers were able to cancel the purchase. It is a Federal law and applies to all states in Australia.

http://www.realestatereview.com.au/agents-required-to-disclose-the-history-of-the-property/

 

[midsommer]

<modsnip>

I am not trying to prove the accused is innocent, and I don't know the accused or any of his family, or indeed, anyone in Kapunda.

<modsnip>

Most of my posts have been in relation to something said by another person, such as "of course the police has compelling DNA evidence" or "they wouldn't have arrested him unless they were 99% certain" or "he was obsessed with her".

I merely wish to point out that we do not have the facts. We do not know what evidence there is. We do not know what their relationship was. There are a million things we do not know.

I am trying to keep an open mind and I am hoping to encourage others to keep an open mind.

The only facts we can say we know for certain are that the accused proffered an alibi and that his name and image have been suppressed by an application from the prosecution.

I have tried to explain the conditions under which the prosecution can seek a suppression order. You can scroll back and read those posts if you are interested enough.

There is no point asking me "if he didn't do it. who did?". Just because I question one person's guilt does not mean I have any idea who else might be guilty.

Clearly though, this is not a straight-forward, cut and dried, case. There are other details that the police/court/prosecution do not want in the public arena.

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.

I want there to be a different explanation. I want it to be something like a bikie or drug-deal murder, because that sort of thing, while hideous, is possible for my brain to accept.

The simplistic explanation of "she rejected him, so he butchered her and her family" is just too awful for my mind to comprehend.