GUILTY Australia - Jill Meagher, 29, Melbourne, 22 Sep 2012 #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue Bottle said:
Life without parole in Australia doesn't necessarily mean for the rest of his natural life. A Life sentence of 25 years or 35 years means 25 years or 35 years.

Keeping in mind laws are always changing and within the next 35 years some laws could change and become retrospective (backdated) and thus could apply to all cases irrespective of when the person was sentenced.
Click to expand...

And given his prior (apparent!) ability to "say what sounded right" so he could complete a rehabilitation course and get out of jail, I'm sure he could word things/look contrite/etc so that the parole board thought he was a changed man, etc, etc. Ugh.

:moo:
 
Blue Bottle said:
Life without parole in Australia doesn't necessarily mean for the rest of his natural life. A Life sentence of 25 years or 35 years means 25 years or 35 years.

Keeping in mind laws are always changing and within the next 35 years some laws could change and become retrospective (backdated) and thus could apply to all cases irrespective of when the person was sentenced.
Click to expand...

Blue so true.
Plus some states give off a 3rd in remissions and others have "Truth in Sentencing."
In short Truth in Sentencing means that the prisoner serves every day of their time. No remissions.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/DP33CHP4

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4517.0Explanatory Notes12010?OpenDocument
 
Blue Bottle said:
Yep... it sucks big time.

:(

I gather with what I have read about him that he's no crash test dummy. To me he sounds like he could easily talk and manipualte himself out of a bull's pocket.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine who used to be a solicitor often says how intelligence was usually lacking in his clients - "So if I try to snatch a handbag at the same location at the same time I'll get caught? Oh..." But this guy is more dangerous because he can obviously change his responses and how he presents himself to suit the occasion.

But over all this, I still can't believe he's been allowed out on parole. Of course he'd behave well in prison, there's no one there for him to attack! :banghead:

All just my own opinions, of course.
 
DrWatson said:
In fact, it may well be that people who sit on his future parole board are currently in kindergarten, prior to becoming social workers and psychologists...!
Click to expand...

(snipped by me) That's so true. And with the distance of time, in 25-35 years he'll be 66-76 and "oh, he's too old to hurt anyone now". But that's not the point! Jill, TM, her family, all have a life sentence of sadness. AB should get an appropriate sentence for the crime(s) he's committed, all the way to his last. day. on. earth. Even then, due to the cost involved in keeping him fed and housed for the next however many years, I'm still kind of in favour of a Carl Williams-style outcome.

MOO.
 
Keentoknow said:
Blue so true.
Plus some states give off a 3rd in remissions and others have "Truth in Sentencing."
In short Truth in Sentencing means that the prisoner serves every day of their time. No remissions.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/DP33CHP4

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4517.0Explanatory Notes12010?OpenDocument
Click to expand...

With "Truth in Sentencing" there is NO Remissions and NO parole period either.
The prisoner stays behind bars for every day the judge gives him.
 
in the CCTV vision of when Jill looks back to where she was walking from and the man with the blue hoodie talking to her... maybe he used that line "there is someone following you, so get in my car".... thats why she looked back?
 
FruitTingles said:
I'm very curious to know this too now! Hmmmm.
Click to expand...

Guess we'll find out in due course. But what we now know is that both crimes occurred in Brunswick. Probably not far from the place she was last scene. I'm guessing the alleged perp's car because - as fat as we know - he is a fledgling killer. These crimes require privacy. Besides which, and forgive me for being graphic - no one has cordoned off a crime scene where an obvious murder has taken place.
 
I think that the question about whether AB can plead not guilty even if he has made a confession has already been well answered by other posters.

The prosecution still has to prove their case against him if he pleads not guilty which is his right. Part of the evidence would be the taped confession. It sounds like the police put a lot of effort into planning their "chat" with him which eventually led to him apparently confessing. I am sure the police followed proper procedures so that it was legally obtained but of course he can also argue that it wasn't.

He also has the right to claim a defence, but good luck with that one!

He would know the system well from all accounts. Hopefully well enough to know he isn't getting away with what the police allege he has done.
 
LeoBear said:
I still don't get why she didn't call her husband. I can only think that she didn't think she was in any danger.
Click to expand...
I personally believe it's because she'd already sent him a text saying "meet me at the pub". He didn't respond, so she might have assumed he was already asleep and didn't want to disturb/wake him. Knowing that it was before midnight in Perth, she may have thought her brother would be a better bet.

I know that I can ring my brother up to midnight without waking him. My husband is usually asleep by 10.

:moo:
 
"The 41-year-old had an emotionally and physically abusive childhood, and a violent and fractured relationship with his father for many years."

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/...an-ernest-bayley/story-e6frg6nf-1226483787739

This annoys me. Many ppl have hard childhoods or bad relations with one or other parent or family member. This is not an excuse for behaving so abominably. I can see it now thrown into his defense, he's not responsible or diminished responsibility because at 41 he hasn't grown the **** up. At what point do we stop this crap? He's 41, not a child. Totally responsible for his actions, I don't give two hoots about his childhood.

Ok rant over. Possible over reaction on my part :|
 
He also has the right to claim a defence, but good luck with that one!

He would know the system well from all accounts. Hopefully well enough to know he isn't getting away with what the police allege he has done.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ali. Would you like to be the Legal Aid lawyer assigned to him though?

I can't imagine how badly the poor defence lawyer would be torn between two emotions, one being the professional obligation to provide the best defence, the other being the knowledge of what has happened, including his previous form.
 
WAG said:
The John Silvester article is interesting, it raises more questions though.

- How did they know she was already dead when they decided to release the footage?
- How did they know she was assaulted in a laneway, I thought no forensic evidence was collected?
- Did they already have him on the suspect list before the CCTV footage came out due to his history and inclusion on the sex offenders list?
- How come the other sexual offences (rape, exposure, stabbing etc with similar looking offenders) were not pieced together prior and an alert put out?

I urge everyone who has been affected by this case to march in the Reclaim the Night march in the city at the end of October, or in the special Sydney Rd march being planned at the moment.
Click to expand...

I think we can safely say they had other CCTV footage that clearly showed his face and was just a matter of identifying him (without releasing it to the public and prejudicing any subsequent witness statements).

I'd suspect they took a calculated risk releasing the footage OR already had him under surveillance (and knew he was not holding her captive) before they arrested him the next day.

All of the other serious sexual offenses were widely reported in the media and I certainly recall the 3 key ones - police would have been aware of the links but they covered a wide area of inner melbourne. And i bet they are pissed at the number of attempts along Sydney Rd that went un-reported initially - there is an obvious pattern and they would had him in next to no time months ago.
 
Blue Bottle said:
Life without parole in Australia doesn't necessarily mean for the rest of his natural life. A Life sentence of 25 years or 35 years means 25 years or 35 years.

Keeping in mind laws are always changing and within the next 35 years some laws could change and become retrospective (backdated) and thus could apply to all cases irrespective of when the person was sentenced.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ ...

In Victoria, only the Supreme Court can impose a life sentence. A term of ‘life’ means for the term of an offender’s natural life. However, the court must fix a non-parole period for any sentence of two years or more, unless it considers that the nature of the offence or the past history of the offender makes it inappropriate to fix a non-parole period. If a non-parole period is not set for a life sentence, the offender will remain in prison for their whole life.

http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.go...encing-options/sentencing-adults/imprisonment
 
DrWatson said:
Thanks Ali. Would you like to be the Legal Aid lawyer assigned to him though?

I can't imagine how badly the poor defence lawyer would be torn between two emotions, one being the professional obligation to provide the best defence, the other being the knowledge of what has happened, including his previous form.
Click to expand...

No Doc I wouldn't. But that is why I have never wanted to be a criminal lawyer. I am not cut out for dealing with criminals or alleged ones! Lucky there are other lawyers who can do it but not me! Just studying criminal law was close enough for me, though it was interesting reading cases but that is not the same as being a part of a serious case.

Give me sweet little old ladies as clients any day and I am happy.
 
TheStupidTree said:
"The 41-year-old had an emotionally and physically abusive childhood, and a violent and fractured relationship with his father for many years."

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/...an-ernest-bayley/story-e6frg6nf-1226483787739

This annoys me. Many ppl have hard childhoods or bad relations with one or other parent or family member. This is not an excuse for behaving so abominably. I can see it now thrown into his defense, he's not responsible or diminished responsibility because at 41 he hasn't grown the **** up. At what point do we stop this crap? He's 41, not a child. Totally responsible for his actions, I don't give two hoots about his childhood.

Ok rant over. Possible over reaction on my part :|
Click to expand...

Agreed... I couldn't care less if he was abused a child, sorry. Many productive, law-abiding people have endured horrible childhoods. This is the beginning of the pity party for a defense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 144 more.
Total: 2,541 (members: 145, guests: 2,396)

Online statistics

Members online
145
Guests online
2,396
Total visitors
2,541
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,904
Messages
18,131,649
Members
231,184
Latest member
Buck_317
Back
Top