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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Any Legal Eagles out there? The thing about the presumption of innocence. Is this absolute? Because it seems to me that it ought not be. Hypothetical for you. If someone walks into a police station and confesses to a murder. Surely innocence can't be presumed. The only issue could be stuff like accused not responsible due to mental deficit or self defense or something? So - not really murder at all but something else? Given such a confession, how can a jury pool be tainted by social media discussions of the case?
 
FruitTingles said:
Off topic but My beloved Dad (totally unexpectedly :() passed away yesterday afternoon, may not be due to the same circumstances to Jill's death but I can relate to some feelings as to what Jill's family are feeling. Sleep peacefully Jill, and my beloved Dad. :rose:
Click to expand...

So sad for you. A loving father is one of the best things in life.
 
FT we are still battling here 6 months after my partner's dad's death. Still raw. Thinking of you.
 
FruitTingles - so sorry to hear you lost your dad suddenly. A few words of support from a stranger are probably not much comfort to you, but I hope you have a lifetime of wonderful memories shared with him to carry in your heart forever :rose:


possumheart said:
What a horrid job she has
Click to expand...

Agreed - there is no way I could do her job, but she has obviously chosen her line of work for a reason. I know nothing of how she came to be in her role, but I imagine it does wonders for the PR of perpetrators of alleged heinous crimes to have a woman representing them.....
 
Often, it is pure strategy to get a woman to defend these crimes, or at least have a woman on the team. It kinds of makes me sick. I wonder if these women really think about what they may have to defend when they decide to become public defenders or defense attorneys. Yes, she is there to guard his rights, etc...but this "man" apparently told LE where Jill's body could be found, right? So he killed her. To me it is kind of 2+2=4. Sometimes I hate the amount of time, money and heartbreak put into trials for cases like this one.
 
LegallyBrunette said:
Some cases like Anita Cobby and an older one in NSW, Virginia Morse, there were details that were so feral they were withheld from general publication to respect the families' sensitivity, it will all be in court during trial but judge may suppress some info from publication. Also maintains whatever shred of dignity the victim may still have.
Click to expand...

Hi there...In 1986 I started a law and order petition (its mentioned in the book 'someone elses daughter) and it gained a lot of publicity and many thousands of signatures...through my petition I became very close to the Lynch family and am still close to them today...Anitas sister is married to my brothers best mate.
I sat through the Westmead and Glebe committal hearings and heard Dr Malouf give his evidence...trust me...there are no unreleased details or "sealed files" in relation to the Cobby case....its all in Julia's book...she is also very close to the family...Detective (retired) Garry heskett was a lead investigator on the case and he and I are still close friends...he has told me the same.
At Garry Lynch's funeral I also caught up with Detective SGT (retired) Graeme Rossetta...if anyone has any questions regarding the Cobby case I will be glad to assist.
 
Hi Paul mcGovern & welcome to Websleuths....nice to have you on board :)
 
Hi Paul McGovern. If all the details were released in the Anita Cobby case, then do the authorities ever see it fit to withold some information?
Somebody asked the following jourrnalist on their twitter account [https://twitter.com/hamishfitz] if the autopsy details will be released in the Meagher case, and he said that he thinks it isn't anybody's business.
I am not sure how he meant it, though autopsies can be withheld, correct? Do you mean all details, and of the court case in particular, are released, though autopsies are another matter and can be withheld?
Although i do want to know information to some extent, i am also mindful of the fact that a person is private and entitled to privacy, and so releasing all details about this case (autopsy included) seems to be an invasion of privacy. Do you (or anyone else) know where this line is drawn and by whom? The judges? The police?
 
Paulie11 said:
Hi Paul McGovern. If all the details were released in the Anita Cobby case, then do the authorities ever see it fit to withold some information?
Somebody asked the following jourrnalist on their twitter account [https://twitter.com/hamishfitz] if the autopsy details will be released in the Meagher case, and he said that he thinks it isn't anybody's business.
I am not sure how he meant it, though autopsies can be withheld, correct? Do you mean all details, and of the court case in particular, are released, though autopsies are another matter and can be withheld?
Although i do want to know information to some extent, i am also mindful of the fact that a person is private and entitled to privacy, and so releasing all details about this case (autopsy included) seems to be an invasion of privacy. Do you (or anyone else) know where this line is drawn and by whom? The judges? The police?
Click to expand...
This case is of Public Interest. How can we, the public, advocate for Justice and tougher sentencing if we do not know the details? The autopsy report will give us the details on which to form that decision. IMO the Public have a right to be both informed and a responsibility to form an opinion about this horrendous crime which is a crime at both the micro level (i.e. individuals) and the macro level (i.e. against civil society). We do not want rapists and murderers on our streets placing other women and girls at risk. My opinion only.
 
LeoBear said:
Any Legal Eagles out there? The thing about the presumption of innocence. Is this absolute? Because it seems to me that it ought not be. Hypothetical for you. If someone walks into a police station and confesses to a murder. Surely innocence can't be presumed. The only issue could be stuff like accused not responsible due to mental deficit or self defense or something? So - not really murder at all but something else? Given such a confession, how can a jury pool be tainted by social media discussions of the case?
Click to expand...

Even if your hypothetical happened, until the person who walks in and confesses is in front of a judge and enters a plea, the presumption of innocence remains. If the plea is guilty, then it just goes to sentencing by the judge, if plea is not guilty, then a full trial with a jury.
Onus is on the prosecution to bring evidence that satisfies the jury of the accused's guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If prosecutor fails to do so, the verdict must be 'not guilty'. And of course, that doesn't mean the accused is innocent, just that the prosecution did not prove the case 'BRD' .
The accused does not have to prove their innocence.

This is why social media is a problem - the jury is meant to decide based only on what is presented to them as evidence in the court, and have no preconceived ideas or go researching online for more details. What is presented in court by the prosecution and defence is subject to the rules of evidence, what is out in MSM is not. It may be hearsay, an opinion or just completely false. In a case such as Jill M's, it seems most people online have decided already.

Also, having photos of the accused published taints any identification by a witness, it has been shown that a witness who has seen a photo of the accused tends to select the person from an ID parade based on matching the photo, not on their own memory of what they witnessed.

In the JM case, and any similar, the prosecution will compile a brief of evidence and deliver to defence, based on what the brief contains, the strength of the evidence, will guide defence in advising the client. Ultimately it is still the client's decision on how to plead.

This gets back to the importance of Police being able to gather evidence and present the strongest possible case. If they are hindered because of some idiots who see it as their right to post any kind of rubbish and start FB pages calling for public hangings etc, then justice is the loser.
 
Paulie11 said:
Hi Paul McGovern. If all the details were released in the Anita Cobby case, then do the authorities ever see it fit to withold some information?
Somebody asked the following jourrnalist on their twitter account [https://twitter.com/hamishfitz] if the autopsy details will be released in the Meagher case, and he said that he thinks it isn't anybody's business.
I am not sure how he meant it, though autopsies can be withheld, correct? Do you mean all details, and of the court case in particular, are released, though autopsies are another matter and can be withheld?
Although i do want to know information to some extent, i am also mindful of the fact that a person is private and entitled to privacy, and so releasing all details about this case (autopsy included) seems to be an invasion of privacy. Do you (or anyone else) know where this line is drawn and by whom? The judges? The police?
Click to expand...

A judge can order that some details are not made public, they are obviously available to the court and jury. In the Anita Cobby case, from memory the most horrific details were known but not published in newspapers and TV. What was published was bad enough. It was before the internet. Really, I don't think the public need or are entitled to know such details, the judge and jury are there on our behalf to decide, how can it help anyone including the victim's family to have it out there chapter and verse for someone to read over their burger at Maccas.
 
likeafox said:
Richard Dawkins has an essay in one of his earlier books about trial by jury versus trial by judge. It's been years since I read it and I don't recall what evidence he presented, but his conclusion has stuck with me: that if he were on trial and guilty, he'd prefer the jury; if accused but innocent, he would want the judge. But that was at least a decade before social media, so I think his argument was more about groupthink and emotion than anything else.

If anyone knows, and if it isn't too far off topic, I'd be curious what the latest research says.
Click to expand...

I did read somewhere recently that research showed that the percentage of convictions is generally higher in judge-only trials - which may support Dawkins' theory. If you were innocent, opted for the judge, found guilty- more chance of an appeal because the judge has to state reasons for the decision, which juries don't.
 
Here's another article:
http://www.news.com.au/national/web...gher-murder-case/story-fndo4cq1-1226493805409

During yesterday's application, defence lawyer Helen Spowart tendered a large amount of material sourced from social media that she said was designed to express hatred or incite hatred in relation to Mr Bayley.

It's virtually impossible to control social media. I don't understand how the courts are going to deal with the social media aspect now and in the future.
 
I have no idea how exactly the suppression order will work with what is out there now on Facebook, Twitter etc. Someone has their work cut out if their intention is to remove it all.

Having said that, I'd like to think, as from today, all Aussies on internet will show respect for Jill & her family by abiding with the rules & laws. And before they post, they stop & think about what is more important...jeopardising the case & risking a possible mis-trial...or Justice for Jill.
 
Anyone in NSW or Vic, channel 9 has story of Anita Cobby murderers on now. 'Australian Families of Crime'
 
LegallyBrunette said:
Even if your hypothetical happened, until the person who walks in and confesses is in front of a judge and enters a plea, the presumption of innocence remains. If the plea is guilty, then it just goes to sentencing by the judge, if plea is not guilty, then a full trial with a jury.
Onus is on the prosecution to bring evidence that satisfies the jury of the accused's guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If prosecutor fails to do so, the verdict must be 'not guilty'. And of course, that doesn't mean the accused is innocent, just that the prosecution did not prove the case 'BRD' .
The accused does not have to prove their innocence.

This is why social media is a problem - the jury is meant to decide based only on what is presented to them as evidence in the court, and have no preconceived ideas or go researching online for more details. What is presented in court by the prosecution and defence is subject to the rules of evidence, what is out in MSM is not. It may be hearsay, an opinion or just completely false. In a case such as Jill M's, it seems most people online have decided already.

Also, having photos of the accused published taints any identification by a witness, it has been shown that a witness who has seen a photo of the accused tends to select the person from an ID parade based on matching the photo, not on their own memory of what they witnessed.

In the JM case, and any similar, the prosecution will compile a brief of evidence and deliver to defence, based on what the brief contains, the strength of the evidence, will guide defence in advising the client. Ultimately it is still the client's decision on how to plead.

This gets back to the importance of Police being able to gather evidence and present the strongest possible case. If they are hindered because of some idiots who see it as their right to post any kind of rubbish and start FB pages calling for public hangings etc, then justice is the loser.
Click to expand...

Thank you! That was enormously helpful!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 81 more.
Total: 227 (members: 82, guests: 145)

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
145
Total visitors
227
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,634
Messages
18,242,717
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top