GUILTY Australia - Jamie Gao, 20, murdered, Padstow, NSW, 20 May 2014

[Mrs G Norris]

Drugs like ice have Australia hooked

AUSTRALIA is in the midst of an ice epidemic, with the drug being linked to a growing number of crimes, and higher quantities of the amphetamine seized at our borders.

And there is no end in sight to our addiction.

Experts say the popularity of the drug caught Australia unawares, with the usage on par with the crack cocaine epidemic in the United States.

In recent months even the Prime Minister has admitted the war on drugs may be unwinnable.

....

The Australian Federal Police say seizures of amphetamines at the border had increased significantly — and were the highest in a decade — after being buoyed by local drug syndicates trying to source precursor drugs needed to cook methamphetamine.

http://www.news.com.au/national/drugs-like-ice-have-australia-hooked/story-fncynjr2-1226942341808

Meanwhile they let Jamie Gao go about his dealing and importing for at least 3 years, and let's face it at 17 he can't have been the most sophisticated dealer on the streets. Seriously, what do they expect.

 

[Amee]

Police allege the floor of the unit was covered with plastic, probably a blue tarpaulin.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...der-of-jamie-gao/story-fni0cx12-1226937982110

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Yeah, well they could be wrong about that .. remember they said Rogerson returned to his car and was seen walking back to the unit carrying what appeared to be a blanket?

A few minutes later a third man, whom police claim was Rogerson, entered the unit and pulled down the roller door. At 1.55pm the door opened again — but only Rogerson and McNamara came out. In that 10-minute window, police will allege Gao was shot dead with two bullets from a small calibre weapon fired into his chest.

Rogerson and McNamara are then allegedly seen backing their cars up to the unit’s entrance. From the back of a white station wagon, McNamara pulls a surfboard cover while from his silver Ford Falcon Rogerson takes what looks like a blanket, and they re-enter the unit. A short time later McNamara, 55, and Rogerson, 73, are seen dragging the surfboard cover with something heavy inside it from the unit and loading it into the back of the station wagon. Office chairs from inside the unit were placed on top.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...left-cops-shaken/story-fni0cx4q-1226938455360

Firstly, would you happily walk into a storage unit covered in a tarp, it wasn't until Rogerson showed up that the roller door was pulled down, if I was doing a drug deal and saw a tarp in the small area I was entering I'd think it was 'goodnight Irene' for me and run.

Small calibre could = very little blood, I remember a case where a guy was shot in the side of his chest, the bullet entered and stopped his heart, but there was no blood, in fact because he was a big guy they couldn't even see and entry wound until the autopsy.

That item that looks like a blanket could have been the tarp.

I'm keeping an open mind on this piece of information, because as mentioned earlier it tends to make more sense that this crime was not planned.

 

[saint_jude]

Who do you think fired the gun? Will they both say the other one did it as the police don't have the gun? One is a murderer and the other one an accessory so have both men been charged with murder and moving the body plus possession of drugs (McNamara).

<modsnip>

Who fired the gun? Was it McNamara, was it Rogerson, or was it neither? This is a most delicate problem for the Crown in prosecuting the case. It's not enough to prove that one or the other did it, the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that ONE of them, in particular fired the gun, causing Gao to die.

If the Crown is lucky, both suspects have made matching statements in isolation nominating the same shooter and that will clear their problem nicely... :floorlaugh: ...but seriously.

The accused have been charged with only two offences. Murder, and supply drugs. There are no backup charges (for example, conspire and agree or even misconduct with a corpse). In my opinion, this brings us to the most extraordinary part of this case, and one which has a rather nasty, pungent smell to it. I've alluded to this in an earlier thread, but here's the bomb.

The crown doesn't need to prove if it was Rogerson or McNamara that pulled the trigger, so long as they can prove one of them did it. Why?

Why indeed?

Section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 is why. If the Crown can prove the three men (McNamara, Rogerson AND Gao) were dealing in a commercial supply quantity of drugs, and one of them causes another to die, murder is proved to be committed by the remaining two. That is, both the trigger man and his accomplice.

Interesting no?

In the absence of the drugs, the Crown's murder case becomes almost impossible to stick on either man. Introduce the drugs, and it's a walk in the park.

<modsnip>

 

[montycooper]

Welcome Ivana NGO!! I wonder about the sincerity of McNamara's 'corruption fighter' role too.
From what Iv'e read... In the late 80's / 90's, GM went undercover to investigate corrupt police dealing with pedophiles, and later gave evidence at the Police Royal Commission. He claimed to have uncovered a protection racket that involved notorious pedophiles Dolly Dun and Colin Fisk. They were allegedly paying off police with money collected from selling drugs.

<modsnip>

My 2 cents in relation to GM is that he may have started out idealistic, but he has been sitting with bitterness and resentment for the past 20-25 years. I read somewhere that Rogerson was trying to get debt collection / location work thrown his way, which suggests he was in need of work / money. I think it's combination of bitterness and need /greed that has worsened over time.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I thought the fact that both of them were involved in the crime meant that it doesn't matter who pulled the trigger, drugs or not.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s18.html

18 Murder and manslaughter defined

(1)

(a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years.

(b) Every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be manslaughter.

(2)

(a) No act or omission which was not malicious, or for which the accused had lawful cause or excuse, shall be within this section.

(b) No punishment or forfeiture shall be incurred by any person who kills another by misfortune only.

 

[saint_jude]

I thought the fact that both of them were involved in the crime meant that it doesn't matter who pulled the trigger, drugs or not.

Okay. Let's explore that. Which crime were both men involved in?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Murder, as defined above ..

 

[montycooper]

To me, McNamara seems more heavily implicated. Jamie got into his car, drugs found in his

car, his surfboard cover, his boat used to dump body....

 

[saint_jude]

Murder, as defined above ..

Let's look at the elements of the offence of murder that the Crown needs to prove. I'll set them out for everyone here.

Before anyone can be convicted of murder, the Crown must establish the following elements;

1. An act or omission of the accused,
2. That caused,
3. The death charged,
4. Where the act was done or the omission was made:

a) with reckless indifference to human life, or​

b) with intend to kill, or​

c) With intend to inflict grievous bodily harm, or​

d) during or immediately after the commission of an offence that carries a punishment of imprisonment for 25 years or life​

The Crown's murder case, becomes impossible to prove at the first element, an act or omission of the accused. There are also some problems, I might suggest, with 4(b) and 4(c).

To put it plainly, the steps to get a conviction in the way that you proposed would have to work like this in practice.

Step 1 - Prove the offence of murder to one of the suspects.
Step 2 - Having proved step 1, convict the remaining stooge with murder, because he was in the company of the first guy (the murderer).

Step 1 is doomed to failure, because nobody can definitively say which suspect is the trigger man, and so the offence cannot be proved.

It is, if you like, a Catch 22 situation for the Crown. They can't prove the murder to the bystander without proving murder to the trigger man, and they can't prove murder to the trigger man because they don't know which one it was.

But the crown can dispense with the trickiness of step 1 simply by proving that a different offence was being committed at the time that could land the guys in the nick for more than a 25 year stretch.

So it works like this.

Step 1 - Prove that there was a drug deal of commercial supply going down and get a conviction on that, then;
Step 2 - Convict everyone that was there at the time the deceased breathed his last with murder.

<modsnip>

Am I making this clearer, or more confusing? I hope clearer.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

IMO, Rogerson pulled the trigger. :twocents:

Edit: who owned the gun?

 

[saint_jude]

IMO, Rogerson pulled the trigger. :twocents:

Look, mine too. He's an experienced killer, and it has his MO all over it.

Unfortunately though, the court cannot convict on opinion...

Well, not lay opinion anyway, and not speculative opinion like MO.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Let's look at the elements of the offence of murder that the Crown needs to prove. I'll set them out for everyone here.

Before anyone can be convicted of murder, the Crown must establish the following elements;

1. An act or omission of the accused,
2. That caused,
3. The death charged,
4. Where the act was done or the omission was made:

a) with reckless indifference to human life, or​

b) with intend to kill, or​

c) With intend to inflict grievous bodily harm, or​

d) during or immediately after the commission of an offence that carries a punishment of imprisonment for 25 years or life​

The Crown's murder case, becomes impossible to prove at the first element, an act or omission of the accused. There are also some problems, I might suggest, with 4(b) and 4(c).

To put it plainly, the steps to get a conviction in the way that you proposed would have to work like this in practice.

Step 1 - Prove the offence of murder to one of the suspects.
Step 2 - Having proved step 1, convict the remaining stooge with murder, because he was in the company of the first guy (the murderer).

Step 1 is doomed to failure, because nobody can definitively say which suspect is the trigger man, and so the offence cannot be proved.

It is, if you like, a Catch 22 situation for the Crown. They can't prove the murder to the bystander without proving murder to the trigger man, and they can't prove murder to the trigger man because they don't know which one it was.

But the crown can dispense with the trickiness of step 1 simply by proving a different offence being committed that could land the guys in the nick for more than a 25 year stretch.

So it works like this.

Step 1 - Prove that there was a drug deal of commercial supply going down and get a conviction on that, then;
Step 2 - Convict everyone that was there at the time the deceased breathed his last with murder.

<modsnip>

Am I making this clearer, or more confusing? I hope clearer.

That's not exactly accurate, and the reason the law is written this way, it is to make sure in a situation exactly like this one that a conviction can be reached. Otherwise whenever there were two or more people at a murder everyone would point the finger at everyone else and no conviction would be reached, in fact police often use this misunderstanding of the law against suspects in interview who may not realise pointing the finger at 'the other guy' is essentially a confession to murder.

 

[Amee]

With Rogerson and McNamara in jail, bail refused, on murder and major drug supply charges, detectives are still working back &#8212; to find the gun, to find where the drugs came from, to find how Gao fits into the picture with McNamara and Rogerson, to find out why he was shot dead.

He may well have just been the go-between to take the drugs from the Hong Kong nationals to the two ex-cops.

&#8220;Everything is recorded on this job from that moment but we now have to go back to the start,&#8221; the police source said.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...der-of-jamie-gao/story-fni0cx12-1226937982110

 

[saint_jude]

That's not exactly accurate, and the reason the law is written this way, it is to make sure in a situation exactly like this one that a conviction can be reached. Otherwise whenever there were two or more people at a murder everyone would point the finger at everyone else and no conviction would be reached, in fact police often use this misunderstanding of the law against suspects in interview who may not realise pointing the finger at 'the other guy' is essentially a confession to murder.

There's plenty of merit in what you say. This is what we call the doctrine of extended joint criminal enterprise, and the normal authority for convictions in such matters is the case of Jacobs and Mehajer, in which the crown could not prove which of the potential killers inflicted the fatal injury, and sought a conviction of both. The Crown was successful and got it's conviction, the matter was appealed, and the conviction was upheld. See the case here.

The doctrine will only work though, where it can be proved that the bystander was not surprised that the murder occurred, or more plainly, that both potential killers contemplated that a murder was likely to occur before it began to unfold in front of them. For more info in pretty plain English about this, see http://www.unistudyguides.com/wiki/Extended_Joint_Criminal_Enterprise.

<modsnip>

But I will say this, I think the Crown would have an incredibly hard time proving that both men went to the unit with the intention to kill. Don't forget that these are seasoned detectives who know the law well. They're going to say in their statements (if indeed they made any at all) something like this;

"...and then, my mate pulled out a gun and shot him. I was gobsmacked. What the **ck have you done Mate? I said..."

As soon as one of 'em says that on record, the doctrine of extended joint criminal enterprise becomes a lot more problematic for the Crown.

And now, back to the drugs.

Were there ever any real drugs at the scene? Maybe, the police told the media that Gao boasted to his mates about a deal.

Why does McNamara still have the bloody things, in his car of all places, days and days later? He knows the cops don't even need a warrant to search it.

OMG - could they have been planted? Nooooooooo... NSW Police aren't corrupt.

Are they?

 

[~Katie~]

IMO, Rogerson pulled the trigger. :twocents:

Agreed.

Just thinking back to this news article: "Gao was shot twice in the chest with a pistol at point blank range in what police believe was an ambush."
I doubt Gao realised that RR was trailing them in the car; IMO he had no idea that Rogerson would turn up at the storage facility.

It also sounds as if he probably hadn't met RR before - he only mentioned meeting 'Glen' and this article specifically says that Police believe he'd known ONE of the people he met for some time.

Those storage facilities are everywhere and everyone knows they have CCTV cameras, especially two ex detectives, one of which was currently a PI .. Makes no sense, does it?

I know! Perhaps I watch too many movies, but I must admit I'm waiting for a 'twist' or new information that this was a set-up or part of a more elaborate plan. I just can't believe they'd not think of the cctv.

 

[saint_jude]

I just can't believe they'd not think of the cctv.

I'm with you. I don't think this was a planned hit a-tall.

Nor can I believe that the best thing two seasoned and experienced detectives could bring with them to transport the body in was a surfboard cover and a blanket, and that they didn't even have those things waiting on hand with them in the unit before they plugged him;

Rogerson and McNamara are then allegedly seen backing their cars up to the unit&#8217;s entrance. From the back of a white station wagon, McNamara pulls a surfboard cover while from his silver Ford Falcon Rogerson takes what looks like a blanket, and they re-enter the unit... source=http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/jamie-gao-the-shocking-discovery-that-left-cops-shaken/story-fni0cx4q-1226938455360​

I wonder if somebody sent Gao there to rip those two guys off hoping he'd get killed? Hmmm...

 

[Amee]

A little look at these documents would be helpful to us until there is more MSM to discuss

Federal Police have now revealed the murdered student from Sydney University of Technology was a suspected drug importer for a number of years, handing over a 20-page document to NSW investigators detailing his activities, suggesting he was "no lowly delivery boy"
Read more at http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national...as-afp-person-of-interest#LGXXtqSTgYmydXIR.99

 

[Ivana NGO]

Why does McNamara still have the bloody things, in his car of all places, days and days later? He knows the cops don't even need a warrant to search it.

OMG - could they have been planted? Nooooooooo... NSW Police aren't corrupt.

Are they?

Dear St. Jude, I enjoy reading your posts although it was getting a bit technical for a layperson like me. (My brain nearly caught fire at one point) And while it's possible the drugs were planted, GM could also have stored them in the car with plausible deny-ability: EG: "If it WAS mine, Why on earth would I store something so valuable in my car, when it could so easily be stolen. Only an idiot etc etc."

 

[saint_jude]

Dear St. Jude, I enjoy reading your posts although it was getting a bit technical for a layperson like me. (My brain nearly caught fire at one point) And while it's possible the drugs were planted, GM could also have stored them in the car with plausible deny-ability: EG: "If it WAS mine, Why on earth would I store something so valuable in my car, when it could so easily be stolen. Only an idiot etc etc."

Thank you Ivana NGO, you're most kind.

I like your plausible deniability.

"Why on earth would I kill Gao inside a complex with a gazillion CCTV cameras"

:tantrum: