GUILTY Australia - Jill Meagher, 29, Melbourne, 22 Sep 2012 #4

[Seeking]

You are correct, it was a no cameras, no recorders interview. they were told things that the public were not.

I did mention press conference happenings when it was happening. A Lot of people were getting updates from twitter too, those comments from journalists in the room were very unusual. Some of them were copied in these threads, I went back to a couple of news sources that I know and everything had been deleted

Whilst on holiday away from Victoria, I have seen newspapers with more information than I have seen on Websleuths or anything reported in Victorian news sources (which I try and keep up with as much as I am able). It is not appropriate for me to write what I have read. I am deeply sorry for all affected by this great tragedy, especially family and friends of the victim. It saddens. me greatly too that such things happen in our society. I am thankful that the police were able to make an arrest so quickly for so many reasons both for the community and for Tom Meagher and his family. I am very glad that he is spared from weeks, months and years of people possibly suspecting him. That would be unbearable for someone who must be in such deep grief, pain, and shock.

 

[Thinking]

You missed something, I am not sure how it got to more than one - but I mentioned one that I know of.

Thanks, I read all of the posts made at the time At that time we had only just received the awful news that someone had been arrested. When I heard about what had happened to Jill (without any gruesome detail) my reaction was similar in many ways to the twitter comments you posted of the journalists, in particular the one who said he wanted to hug his children that night, or something along those lines. I also thought "oh no this isn't good" and felt ill etc etc as most of us would have felt. The media would have also been told, before we all knew, that the accused was likely to take the police to where he had left Jill that night - horrible, horrible stuff. This could have been all they were told though.

I'm just saying it is easy to speculate and dramatise without really knowing any facts, and I'm not sure that it is appropriate. What we do know is bad enough.

 

[LeoBear]

Thanks, I read all of the posts made at the time At that time we had only just received the awful news that someone had been arrested. When I heard about what had happened to Jill (without any gruesome detail) my reaction was similar in many ways to the twitter comments you posted of the journalists, in particular the one who said he wanted to hug his children that night, or something along those lines. I also thought "oh no this isn't good" and felt ill etc etc as most of us would have felt. The media would have also been told, before we all knew, that the accused was likely to take the police to where he had left Jill that night - horrible, horrible stuff. This could have been all they were told though.

I'm just saying it is easy to speculate and dramatise without really knowing any facts, and I'm not sure that it is appropriate. What we do know is bad enough.

I'm not sure we disagree on what level of disclosure is appropriate in this case. However, there are risks with non-disclosure. One is that it will lead to speculation as to why. I personally don't need or want to know details but I do want to know why the Government is withholding them.

 

[GutFeeling!]

And that of itself is suggestive, is it not?

Sure is - rarely happens. The police don't have to say a thing to a reporter - just put out a release. The fact that the press conference started at 10:30 pm (no news except breakfast - they could have put it off) and the rest ... imo they wanted those reporters to know it all, to go back and tell editors etc to get them all onside, and it worked because they are not even asking questions about the way she was murdered. They would be normally by now

 

[LeoBear]

Sure is - rarely happens. The police don't have to say a thing to a reporter - just put out a release. The fact that the press conference started at 10:30 pm (no news except breakfast - they could have put it off) and the rest ... imo they wanted those reporters to know it all, to go back and tell editors etc to get them all onside, and it worked because they are not even asking questions about the way she was murdered. They would be normally by now

Yes. I guess there must be good reasons for this approach. I guess my issue is more about democratic process than content of the press conference. There must be a significant issue of law at stake.

 

[cluciano63]

I don't have a problem with cause of death being withheld until after trial, but I do think the details should be released once all appeals are over, etc. It seems more of a benefit to the killer, in a way, to have the details kept secret. Jill cannot be degraded in any way by what happened to her, and it is important that details are known to make sure the killer is kept from parole, which involves the public as they need to know in order to exert pressure.

 

[GutFeeling!]

I'm not sure we disagree on what level of disclosure is appropriate in this case. However, there are risks with non-disclosure. One is that it will lead to speculation as to why. I personally don't need or want to know details but I do want to know why the Government is withholding them.

The Government with holding is kind of an over-statement - the Police are a government body but I doubt it went further than Vic Police's decision.

This is purely my speculation/opinion, with a little knowledge thrown in lol: Firstly, law in Australia is as soon as an arrest is made you have to shut up about the case (kinda/sorta), so one could say there was no hidden agenda that is just the law of the country, he had been arrested by the time the press conference was called - it's been broken before - people have not had to go to court because views have been aired (google Alan Jones - I think it comes under Contempt of court).

Secondly, as much as reporters love telling the news, many (not all) are mindful of who is going to read it. If Tom wanted to know I am sure he was told, way before the media (must admit aussie cops are good at that).

 

[GutFeeling!]

I don't have a problem with cause of death being withheld until after trial, but I do think the details should be released once all appeals are over, etc. It seems more of a benefit to the killer, in a way, to have the details kept secret. Jill cannot be degraded in any way by what happened to her, and it is important that details are known to make sure the killer is kept from parole, which involves the public as they need to know in order to exert pressure.

It can hurt family and details are eventually released, but rarely aired if they are horrific. Jill can't be degraded as such but she is a memory to so many. This is not like Anita Cobby imo, and we learned details there. this was a woman that we watched standing and talking - that was an intimate moment because we know what happened after that footage. we learned that Anita got off a train, walked a certain path and met with that lot - we never saw her standing there, we never saw her interacting - we just saw the photos of this beautiful girl, but photos don't show us much - just pretty pictures. We saw Jill standing there talking. I am still surprised that was released to be honest. When they said they were releasing footage I expected more of what we saw in the art gallery - kind of a "take our word, this was Jill walking down the street," But it wasn't like that, it was Jill - I have not been able to look at that footage since the arrest because I know within hours (maximum) she was murdered.

I can imagine how Tom felt when he saw that footage - she was a stone throw from their front door.

 

[moreinfo]

Why do you say "Not by Jill"?

Perhaps the records were used to establish the exact time and duration of the calls that Jill DID make, to confirm what her family said, and to try to narrow down the window of time in which the attack took place? Also to coordinate the times with those on the CCTV records they got?

Also, the unanswered calls from her brother and from Tom would have been logged as missed calls, so that information would suggest the other side of that time window.

They may also have records as to WHEN the SIM card was removed?

Plus the location services, etc...

There's never been any discussion to AB phone. Does he ow one? Did he have it on him at the time? Any evidence as to his location at any time picked from that Saturday morning to the next days, to determine his movement prior and after?

 

[GutFeeling!]

Yes. I guess there must be good reasons for this approach. I guess my issue is more about democratic process than content of the press conference. There must be a significant issue of law at stake.

There really is. One good attorney and some charges could be dropped (I am not sure all could) One the first page of this thread there is a pretty easy to read explanation of the law as it stands now. Salem posted it in the first post of this thread.

 

[cluciano63]

It can hurt family and details are eventually released, but rarely aired if they are horrific. Jill can't be degraded as such but she is a memory to so many. This is not like Anita Cobby imo, and we learned details there. this was a woman that we watched standing and talking - that was an intimate moment because we know what happened after that footage. we learned that Anita got off a train, walked a certain path and met with that lot - we never saw her standing there, we never saw her interacting - we just saw the photos of this beautiful girl, but photos don't show us much - just pretty pictures. We saw Jill standing there talking. I am still surprised that was released to be honest. When they said they were releasing footage I expected more of what we saw in the art gallery - kind of a "take our word, this was Jill walking down the street," But it wasn't like that, it was Jill - I have not been able to look at that footage since the arrest because I know within hours (maximum) she was murdered.

I can imagine how Tom felt when he saw that footage - she was a stone throw from their front door.

I believe all cases should be treated equally. And not all murders are the same-i.e. if her murder was especially brutal, the public has a right to know, in my opinion, as I said, to have a chance to make sure he stays in prison for life. Lots of killers end up on parole-do we want the most brutal among them to manage to get out, to spare feelings? Murders have an effect on the entire society and the more the people know, the more they may be inclined to force changes in laws.

 

[DrWatson]

There's never been any discussion to AB phone. Does he ow one? Did he have it on him at the time? Any evidence as to his location at any time picked from that Saturday morning to the next days, to determine his movement prior and after?

Good question. I assume that the police would have taken possession of AB's phone upon arrest. And if it was a smartphone, then location services may have been turned on. Of course, if he was smart, he may have turned them off before leaving home - but then there's nothing to say he was particularly smart...

 

[GutFeeling!]

I believe all cases should be treated equally. And not all murders are the same-i.e. if her murder was especially brutal, the public has a right to know, in my opinion, as I said, to have a chance to make sure he stays in prison for life. Lots of killers end up on parole-do we want the most brutal among them to manage to get out, to spare feelings? Murders have an effect on the entire society and the more the people know, the more they may be inclined to force changes in laws.

It may be an Australian thing (and others can correct me if they feel I am wrong) but I honestly feel at the end of all this, if a well-known announcer gets on air and says that the details have been released and we have been asked not to share them because of their horrific nature" that we accept that (once again I may be wrong). It may be toned down, it may end up in a book - it can be released after a certian amount of time, imo we just don't have the need to know it all (the majority don't)

If he did end up on parole (not going to happen, I'll bet my first born on that - he is 26 now lol) we don't have a say anyway BUT the parole board would have all the details, all the court records, his past history - they will have it all. this man if found guilty, will never walk a street again.

We don't have freedom of the press, we don't even have freedom of speech in our constitution, nor is there a declaration of any kind, that is not to say we don't have freedom of speech, we certainly do, it's just not written. We don't have sunshine laws or anything similar. It's a different culture (not saying better or worse) just different.

 

[moreinfo]

Also something ive thought about. He wouldnt (im assuming) have owned a shovel for gardening purposes seeing as he lived in a bungalow. i wonder if there is any footage from the Bunnings store which is located opposite his gym on Gaffney street. How premeditated was it. Had it just been bought that day, few days before. Wonder if they have any worthwhile footage to look at. could give insight into how long his intentions were to find victim to end in this way.
Well the other scenario could be that he "borrowed" it from the neighbour living in the front of his bungalow. Wonder if they ever noticed it missing/ or if they heard him borrow it?

 

[GutFeeling!]

There's never been any discussion to AB phone. Does he ow one? Did he have it on him at the time? Any evidence as to his location at any time picked from that Saturday morning to the next days, to determine his movement prior and after?

Great question. I can't remember anything being said, maybe because they have so much that if he did have a phone they can put in a request just to verify his whereabouts on that day and afterwards - in the big picture it is not as important as what they have on him - my opinion/thoughts only

 

[FruitTingles]

I believe all cases should be treated equally. And not all murders are the same-i.e. if her murder was especially brutal, the public has a right to know, in my opinion, as I said, to have a chance to make sure he stays in prison for life. Lots of killers end up on parole-do we want the most brutal among them to manage to get out, to spare feelings? Murders have an effect on the entire society and the more the people know, the more they may be inclined to force changes in laws.

I get the worst feeling thinking about that. How anyone in their right mind could ever let a person who took another human beings life, out in to society. Who's to say they won't do it again? You can't ever be sure of that. IMO, that's why it should never be risked. Horrible feelings just thinking about being in society with someone that has previously killed another person. Argh.

 

[Seeking]

It may be an Australian thing (and others can correct me if they feel I am wrong) but I honestly feel at the end of all this, if

We don't have freedom of the press, we don't even have freedom of speech in our constitution, nor is there a declaration of any kind, that is not to say we don't have freedom of speech, we certainly do, it's just not written. We don't have sunshine laws or anything similar. It's a different culture (not saying better or worse) just different.

What is a sunshine law?

 

[GutFeeling!]

What is a sunshine law?

"Florida began its tradition of openness back in 1909 with the passage of Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes or the “Public Records Law.” This law provides that any records made or received by any public agency in the course of its official business are available for inspection,..."

http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/pages/Law

Basically everything has to be disclosed to the public (my wording is probably very bad here). Documents can be sealed by the courts, but they often provide a lot of detail with every case. Above explains it better than me

 

[GutFeeling!]

If this had happened in America, in order for the public not to have access to it, it would have to go before a court and the judge have it sealed. Every piece of paper to do with an arrest (statements etc) is available to the public.

As an example, earlier this year a child was abducted in Arizona from her bedroom (Isabella Celis) part of that document dump that the police handed over contained details of everyone the police had visited in that street - all the details were there

 

[marlywings]

An interesting article, although not about Jill's case, it mentions the impact of social media etc on high profile cases.

The worst case scenario, according to legal expert at the Queensland University of Technology Peter Black, is that the judge grants a permanent stay of indictment because pre-trial publicity about the man was too prejudicial.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...el-morcombe-case/story-e6frep1o-1226115509286