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

[Kelpie]

Also I am finding it hard to come to terms with him murdering 3 people on his own. I understand we have come to the conclusion that it was 1 on 1 in each instance, but still, his size and build matched with AR's does not seem like a fair fight. I know everyone makes the claims about rage causing unbelievable strength, but the will to survive also give a person this strength and even more so. If AR was alerted by the screams of RR, he would have come out looking to protect the lives of his loved ones, he would have had no idea if CR had been harmed and her safety would be at the forefront of his mind. Couple this with ones own will to survive, even half asleep the instant adrenaline would have made him a formidible opponent.

JMHO

I too think it hard to imagine the accused overpowering 3 people. But, if the circumstances were to his advantage, it could be possible. Adrenaline, frenzy, psychosis, mental illness, drugs, rage, any or a combination of these would greatly put the accused at a possible advantage. Also if AR was a heavy sleeper or had a couple of drinks (not saying he was drunk), it could make waking and getting all your senses on board quickly and assessing what is happening a difficult thing (awoken during a sleep cycle you can feel like you can't wake up). You would only have a matter of seconds, and then you are attacked. And, if the lights were off and the house was in total darkness, you can imagine how the accused would have an advantage to stab or attack anything that moves. He could have stood motionless and attacked from behind. Being attacked, you would hesitate, momentarily, not knowing who you were about to harm. Those split seconds in making a move can be the difference between who overpowers who.

 

[Fuskier]

I tend to favour the scenario that CR was killed first. Sounds of movement in CR's room may have caused RR to check on CR knowing she had been sick earlier in the day. RR was confronted by killer, ran to kitchen, maybe grabbed a knife in self-defence, screamed for 'help' but was fatally attacked. AR was woken suddenly from a heavy sleep by RR's blood-curdling screams for help, went to her aide (possibly slowed by a couple of drinks) but as he exited the bedroom, was confronted by the killer covered in blood, holding the bloodied knife. Fearful, he yelled, but was fatally attacked by the killer who was 'in killing mode' having already killed two other family members in the past hour.

Hopefully neither parent knew what had happened to CR.

 

[singers]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49436&page=12

Check out this case. This 16 year old boy killed a family, on his own, no one even questioned that he couldn't have done it without help.

 

[Kelpie]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49436&page=12

Check out this case. This 16 year old boy killed a family, on his own, no one even questioned that he couldn't have done it without help.

Some similarities too, lived within walking distance of the victims, killer had easy access through unlocked door, attacked each victim one at a time.
Anyone who is interested, a book coming out in March 2011 about the above case. Titled "A Need To Kill" by Michael W. Cuneo. Quote from the publisher site "Kreider had a dark side that friends and family knew nothing about, but he
documented his feelings and need to kill in a journal."

I wonder if some evidence is found about the accused "hiding" a dark side.

 

[chaser33]

i think maybe the police have that part wrong, in regards to the killer sticking around for over an hour after the deaths.
id assume he went to the ROWES without any intention on killing them, he may have been drunk,drugged up or just angry and he couldnt handle being rejected by CR anymore and just snapped.
he probly didnt realise what he did until after he did it so he spent alot of the time changing CR, putting her bed and trying to clean up the scene purely out of panic.
after a half hour or so of frantically cleaning and panicking around the house he wouldve woken the mother who saw him covered in blood and screamed, knowing he was busted he stabbed her.
(the police said after examination of the crime scene the murders werent organised) which if you read between the lines means he just stabbed at anything and left alot of mess doing so.
the dad wouldve awoke during this scuffle but didnt make it too far out the bedroom as he was attacked and in no state of mind to defend himself efficiently.
i agree with above posts, at this stage the killer wouldve panicked and left, leaving a trail of blood behind.
i dont think the killer could be classed as "insane", i just think alot of built up rage, depression, self doubt and self worth over being rejected by CR caused him to just snap, he then killed the witnesses (so to speak), then in an effort to try and get away with it, he returned to his normal lifestyle and tried to blend into the rest of the civilization

my two cents

 

[Fuskier]

Would you be able to attend work the next morning after violently stabbing three people to death during the night?

What kind of person could be 'cool & calm' enough to make a facebook entry on the victim's computer before leaving, resume normal routine, blend back in, attend the Shrine and read messages of shock/grief from friends/family and console the bf of the victim?

What kind of 'mental state' would be needed to present as 'normal' after such a brutal event?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

A psychopath would have no problem carrying on as usual after such an event.

 

[Salem]

Would you be able to attend work the next morning after violently stabbing three people to death during the night?

What kind of person could be 'cool & calm' enough to make a facebook entry on the victim's computer before leaving, resume normal routine, blend back in, attend the Shrine and read messages of shock/grief from friends/family and console the bf of the victim?

What kind of 'mental state' would be needed to present as 'normal' after such a brutal event?

I don't know what "kind of" person this would be, but I do know it is done, over and over.

Look at the Jonathan Foster case. Absolute horror and the alleged perp actually showed up at the parents' house just hours after killing the child and offered info to help in the search efforts.

Also the Sandra Cantu case. The perp contacted newspapers and LE with different stories. Actually how they got caught.

It is not unusual for the "kind of" person that kills others, to come across normally when being around others shortly after the killing. Very weird if you ask me and I certainly don't understand it.

Salem

 

[chaser33]

he was good friends with CR.if he went into hiding after the murders her and his friends and family would find that suspicious.i believe he wanted to get away with what he did so he acted like ppl would expect him to.thats why he placed flowers at the scene and offered condolences to chris and CRs boyfriend DP

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Exactly. He had no choice but to carry on as if innocent.

 

[sniffer]

I too don't believe the accused went there with the intention of murdering 3 people, I also don't believe he went there drugged (as there has been mention that this seems unlikely) or angry. Drunk perhaps, but could a drunk teen commit such brutal crimes?

I don't believe he went there angry, as the person who dropped him of would have sensed/known this and one would imagine have alerted police imediately. Some have suggested that maybe the police had him in their sights from early on, but I doubt that if the driver told them he had dropped him off their angry and he had cuts on his arms (as has been stated but only as rumour), they would simply let him go and wait for Dna evidence.

Many a case has been based solely on circumstantial evidence. What if the Dna came back inconclusive. If the police had reasonable belief that he was the perp, he would have been arrested immediately.

Some facts on arrest in Sa:

What procedure must be followed if a person is arrested without a warrant?

People apprehended without a warrant must be delivered to the nearest police station as soon as possible [Summary Offences Act 1953 s 78(1)].

However, a person arrested without a warrant who is suspected of committing an indictable offence or an offence punishable by imprisonment of two years of more, can be detained for as long as four hours to investigate the offence. The detention can be extended up to eight hours if authorised by a magistrate. During this time the person can be taken to places connected with suspected offences to assist police in their investigation [Summary Offences Act 1953 s 78].

http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch02s02s03s01.php

Reasonable cause required for arrest to be valid

Generally an arrest will be lawful if the officer who carries it out has reasonable cause to suspect an offence has occurred or will occur. The arresting officer may be mistaken as to the facts, and the person later released. Provided, however, the officer had an honest and reasonable belief in the relevant facts, then they have acted lawfully. For that reason no attempt should ever be made to resist arrest. Civil action can however be taken for damages or compensation if a wrongful arrest is made.

http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch02s02s03s02.php

 

[Myserty64]

The only person who knew what he was going to do that night is the perpetrator.
I am yet to meet a person who can read minds.

The accused has been charged with three murders. He will have his day in court where it has to be proved he committed those three murders. If he is found guilty he will be given a custodial sentence.
That is how our justice system works.

Whatever happens the perpetrator is a lot better off than the victims. They died what appears to have been a horrible death and have ceased to exist.
Their killer will still eat, drink, watch movies & TV, follow sports teams and even further their education.
Who do you think is better off?

 

[chaser33]

The only person who knew what he was going to do that night is the perpetrator.
I am yet to meet a person who can read minds.

The accused has been charged with three murders. He will have his day in court where it has to be proved he committed those three murders. If he is found guilty he will be given a custodial sentence.
That is how our justice system works.

Whatever happens the perpetrator is a lot better off than the victims. They died what appears to have been a horrible death and have ceased to exist.
Their killer will still eat, drink, watch movies & TV, follow sports teams and even further their education.
Who do you think is better off?

that question is retorical

 

[Kelpie]

A psychopath would have no problem carrying on as usual after such an event.

I wonder if any SSRI's (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) came into play. That could explain a lot.

 

[Salem]

Starting a new thread. Please continue here: AU Chantelle Rowe, 16 & parents brutally murdered - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Thanks,

Salem