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

[Cyclone82]

Also singers you might want to add in there that on sunday evening the it appeared that the family had a roast dinner. The investigators must of found evidence eg left overs and could determine when they were cooked or perhaps dirty dishes out still, you know stuff like that.

There are heaps of articles saying the party was friday night but i believe they are wrong because some of the ones that say the party was on friday night say that the murders happened at 12-1am on saturday night. I was sure the party was saturday night when the parents were in Adelaide, but she might of also had a party on friday night aswell, but i think the main one everyone talks about is the one on saturday night.

 

[sbr]

i agree, he hasnt confessed. If he has, then clearly he must have withdrew it with advice from his lawyer while they explore an alibi scenario.

He was at the police station for 4 hours the night he was arrested giving a statement or confession which ever you wish to call it of his version of the events of the evening of the murders that is a fact. How do I know this my son in law was there at the time.

Your son was there for 4 hours as well?

 

[sbr]

I certainly did not say that he claimed that he did not do it in my statement, the only 'but' that im aware of was that there was a 'partial alibi' given but what for is still unknown i believe it may have been already dismissed or confirmed and did not make a large difference to the charges that were laid anyway, im unsure just a little confused to see the term 'alibi' still coming up and the 'partial alibi' term, what is with that? To me an alibi explains your inability to be at the crime scene at the time of the crime and able to be evidenced and clarrified. That is clearly not the case.

I still personally think the "partial alibi" was in relation to the sexual assault/rape charge and this is now why people are questioning Chanetelles relationship with the accused.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Your son was there for 4 hours as well?

4 hours seems like a long time for someone who simply drove the accused to the police station....what else were they asking about I wonder.

 

[aimeli]

4 hours seems like a long time for someone who simply drove the accused to the police station....what else were they asking about I wonder.

4 hours is a long drop off isn't it?

 

[singers]

My understanding, from people in the town, is that a lad came forward after the arrest and stated he dropped him off, with a bag. This is just hearsay at the moment. It may not be true, I don't know.
I too have wondered why he would'nt have come forward earlier but I can only imagine that the accused gave some sort of satisfactory explanation to him as to his movements that evening.
What I have'nt seen anywhere are the accuseds movements on the evening in question.
If a friend did drop him off then where were they prior to that?
At a friends home, at his home? It would be interesting to know if there had been drinking or drug taking or any talk that made anyone feel uneasy.

If a friend did'nt drop him off then where was the accused during the earlier part of the evening?

This is a good question, I wonder what the accused movements were on the weekend.

Was he at the party Saturday night? who was he hanging out with on Sunday?
Some-one must know, but probably only the closest circle of friends. can some of you locals ask your kids if they know?

Also Templers I have heard two versions of the driver confessing.
1. that someone came forward after the arrest and confessed and it was no one from the town that people recognized. (perhaps an out of towner)
2. The driver came forward early, but it was kept confidential to protect the driver from retribution.

 

[Curiousasacat]

I think the SIL was only there for 2 hours? But not sure.

 

[singers]

i agree, he hasnt confessed. If he has, then clearly he must have withdrew it with advice from his lawyer while they explore an alibi scenario.

He was at the police station for 4 hours the night he was arrested giving a statement or confession which ever you wish to call it of his version of the events of the evening of the murders that is a fact. How do I know this my son in law was there at the time.

I would love to know what was said because 4 hours is quite a long time. How many times can you ask him where he was Sunday night? Perhaps lots of paper work?

 

[Cyclone82]

Some-one must know, but probably only the closest circle of friends. can some of you locals ask your kids if they know?

Yeah thats a good question, im sure the local teens know.

 

[chaser33]

I would love to know what was said because 4 hours is quite a long time. How many times can you ask him where he was Sunday night? Perhaps lots of paper work?

4 hours at a police station where there are fatalities is quite normal.
there was a road fatality in eudunda where my girlfriend knew the victim and we were at the police station from 1am until 730am

 

[templers]

This is a good question, I wonder what the accused movements were on the weekend.

Was he at the party Saturday night? who was he hanging out with on Sunday?
Some-one must know, but probably only the closest circle of friends. can some of you locals ask your kids if they know?

Also Templers I have heard two versions of the driver confessing.
1. that someone came forward after the arrest and confessed and it was no one from the town that people recognized. (perhaps an out of towner)
2. The driver came forward early, but it was kept confidential to protect the driver from retribution.

I will ask my daughter if she knows anything but I think if she did then there would've been talk of "he was at such and suches earlier that day and was fine"...I don't like to ask too much because they really don't want to talk about it. Still in shock really.
I don't live in Kapunda now though I did for several years (and am still close by) and my daughter attended high school there for a while. I have relatives in the town and my daughter knows a lot of kids from there still.
I was wondering if he may have been out of town that day, hence the rumour of the driver being from out of town.
I had'nt heard the second one, about the driver (if there was one) coming forward early in the piece.

 

[singers]

His brother seems like an angry guy, if he was with these guys in the time before the murder, i bet they wound him up.

 

[sniffer]

I still personally think the "partial alibi" was in relation to the sexual assault/rape charge and this is now why people are questioning Chanetelles relationship with the accused.

An alibi partial of not is only used to prove innocence. If he was claiming he had a sexual relationship with the accused to explain the suppressed charge, they would not be calling this an alibi, it would simply come out in court as a part of the defence case.

His alibi can only be used to prove he was somewhere else during the commision of the crime. See attached:

An alibi is a judicial mode of defense under which a defendant proves or attempts to prove that the person was in another place when the alleged act was committed; as, to set up an alibi; to prove an alibi. The Criminal Law Deskbook of Criminal Procedure [1] states: "Alibi is different from all of the other defenses; it is based upon the premise that the defendant is truly innocent." In the Latin language "alibi" means "somewhere else".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alibi

Therefore the accused is claiming he did not commit the crime. If his DNA was found on the victim and he is going to claim they had a sexual relationship, this will come out in the trial to try and give the judge/jury "reasonable doubt" as to the DNA evidence. That is the point in a murder charge, the jury needs to find "beyond reasonable doubt" that the person committed the crime. We all know the OJ Simpson case and the majority of the world believes that he is guilty, but as soon his defence lawyers brought out the glove, asked OJ to put it on and then stated 'If the glove don't fit you must acquit', reasonable doubt was put into the minds of the jury. Whether they thought he didn't do it, or that there was some tampering of evidence, they had some doubts as to his guilt and so by law had to return a not guilty verdict.


The prosecution needs to prove you guilty, you do not need to prove your innocence (this is why it is said innocent until proven guilty). Maybe the prosecution case is not as solid as some might like to believe and that is the reason for such statements as below:

After the court appearance Detective Superintendent Grant Moyle said the investigation into the murders was still underway.

'I'd like to stress that it's still not too late to come forward with any information that anyone has in regards to the murder of Andrew, Rosemary and Chantelle Rowe,' he said.

 

[Curiousasacat]

Sniffer, awesome post. Thank you

 

[singers]

An alibi partial of not is only used to prove innocence. If he was claiming he had a sexual relationship with the accused to explain the suppressed charge, they would not be calling this an alibi, it would simply come out in court as a part of the defence case.

This is going to be hard for him to prove unless there are text messages or facebook messages from the victim that prove without doubt they had a physical relationship.
Her *best friend* didn't even know of the accused and the only people who thought he was having a relationship with the victim are those he told. Several of the victims friends have come forward on boards and said there is no way they were ever anything more than friends.

I'm suspicious that it was all in his head. But perhaps it was all secret.

I bet there are plenty of sms or computer messages though, this is one part of the case I am waiting to watch unravel.

 

[templers]

Me too.
My daughter said she knows nothing of his movements that weekend. No-one she knows has said anything.
She also said that , although it was possible, she definitely does'nt think there was a relationship there that was sexual. "Not her type" is what she said.
But, you never know.

 

[sniffer]

This is going to be hard for him to prove unless there are text messages or facebook messages from the victim that prove without doubt they had a physical relationship.
Her *best friend* didn't even know of the accused and the only people who thought he was having a relationship with the victim are those he told. Several of the victims friends have come forward on boards and said there is no way they were ever anything more than friends.

I'm suspicious that it was all in his head. But perhaps it was all secret.

I bet there are plenty of sms or computer messages though, this is one part of the case I am waiting to watch unravel.

That's the point, he doesn't have to PROVE it. If he claims they had a relationship it's the prosecutions job to DISPROVE it. It just comes down to which side makes their case the best. But if he claims they did, then the prosecution call a hundred witnesses who say they didn't, unless he's got something good, he's toast.

 

[cbayford]

this is all false

 

[cbayford]

hmmm i read some posts and this is disturbing me as he did not go there with intention to do anything the murder weapon came of the wall in the house it was not a knife.

 

[sbr]

Hey Cbayford, I don't believe he would've had intentions initially either. This weapon on the wall at the Rowes house, was it a sword?