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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the US, jurors are only allowed to base their verdict on what is heard in the courtroom, and it seems to work for the most part, as people are often acquitted. I just think it is unrealistic to think that info can be completely controlled in this new age. American jurors have to admit if they have already made up their minds as to guilt or innocence.

At some point, the people have to be trusted to do what is right. The internet is not going away any time soon.
 
Sky News said on their late night news that The Age submitted applications against the image ban, as did the Herald Sun (as noted below in the HS article). Sky News, however, due to their own legal advice, aren't going to show the photo unblurred.
In partly granting an application made on behalf of Adrian Ernest Bayley at Melbourne Magistrates' Court today, Deputy Chief Magistrate Felicity Broughton said in preliminary comments this afternoon that:

*The case had already attracted an extreme level of media and public interest.

*The mainstream media had not published any material as described in the order sought by the defence, but the area of threat or concern principally lay with "non-mainstream media".

*And courts should only make suppression orders where necessary while considering the principles of open justice and the importance of a fair trial.

In refusing the application to ban publication of Mr Bayley's image, Ms Broughton said lawyers for the Herald Sun - who opposed the applications - submitted that images should only be banned when identity may be an issue at trial.

She referred to the case of backpack killer Ivan Milat, whose photos were published before his committal proceedings had begun in a case where identity was an issue.

But she said the issue of identity had not been flagged by either the defence or prosecution during yesterday's application and it was not her role to speculate.

She therefore refused the application to ban publication of Mr Bayley's image.
Click to expand...
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/we...gher-murder-case/story-e6frf7jo-1226493805409
 
Fuskier said:
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.
Click to expand...

:goodpost:

Couldn't have said it better Fuskier!
 
Alice Bernadette said:
So sad for you. A loving father is one of the best things in life.
Click to expand...
FruitTingles, also my sympathy on the passing of your Father. Very sad. I also lost my Father in August. I do love the above quote from Alice Bernadette, so true.
RIP to all Fathers recently passed, may you all be up in Heaven looking down on us all with pride.
:rose:
 
Fuskier said:
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.
Click to expand...

What level of detail do you think should be open to the public.

And what level of detail should be kept private to Tom, and both Tom and Jill's families?
 
cluciano63 said:
In the US, jurors are only allowed to base their verdict on what is heard in the courtroom, and it seems to work for the most part, as people are often acquitted. I just think it is unrealistic to think that info can be completely controlled in this new age. American jurors have to admit if they have already made up their minds as to guilt or innocence.

At some point, the people have to be trusted to do what is right. The internet is not going away any time soon.
Click to expand...

In the US, you have the 'voir dire', where jurors can be questioned before a challenge by either side. In Australia, we have 'peremptory challenges', and limited to a certain number. So you can't screen jurors as you can in US. For anyone who hasn't seen it, the film 'Runaway Jury' is very helpful. It has been used here as part of a law unit teaching trial procedure (to compare the two systems)
 
Love Coco said:
Sky News said on their late night news that The Age submitted applications against the image ban, as did the Herald Sun (as noted below in the HS article). Sky News, however, due to their own legal advice, aren't going to show the photo unblurred.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/we...gher-murder-case/story-e6frf7jo-1226493805409
Click to expand...

As if you can compare Milat in the same breath as Bayley.
Milat had multiple victims, probably many still not discovered, and a witness who escaped an abduction attempt and had identified him already. Police found numerous belongings from his victims hidden in his house and some in a brother's house. He owned a firearm which matched bullets used to kill victims. And so on..
 
oz_sleuth said:
No

I get the feeling that was AB;s car stopping home to grab a shovel.

makes me sick just thinking about it.
Click to expand...

I wonder why two neighbours said 'cars', and the landlady said she heard nothing? Could have been a heavy sleeper though.
 
J-Diggety said:
What level of detail do you think should be open to the public.

And what level of detail should be kept private to Tom, and both Tom and Jill's families?
Click to expand...

J you know there is always full discolsure to husband and family....
 
Wow - the bit I find intriguing is this:

JILL Meagher's accused murderer was tipped off by a public official that he was under investigation as police closed in.

Adrian Ernest Bayley, 41, was told he was a suspect in a serious crime in the hours before he was arrested and while under surveillance.
Click to expand...

Who the hell was the "public official"? <modsnip> Allegedly "looking after" Bayley? And how did this person get the information? Did the police contact this person regarding information as to the suspect's whereabouts, habits, behaviour, etc? And for what reason did this person contact Bayley and tip him off?

And most of all - why did the police not think it worth following up on this and charging the public official?

They were lucky to find and arrest Bayley after that. And Bayley was silly enough to stay put - although he was under surveillance by then anyway.

The bit about returning to the scene of the murder is also intriguing - it would suggest that the murder did NOT occur in the suspect's car, but more likely to be somewhere such as down the bottom end of that laneway. I would presume that police quite probably have footage of Bayley's car leaving via Sydney Rd and then returning.

And if he went home to get a shovel, presumably the neighbour was mistaken when he referred to "two cars" turning up around 2am - it would have just been the one.

Lots to consider in that article.... thanks KG1

For those who can't get to the text of the article due to the paywall, try putting the headline

"Jill Meagher's accused murderer was warned of police probe"

without the quotes into Google, and the link should take you to the article.
 
DrWatson said:
Wow - the bit I find intriguing is this:



Who the hell was the "public official"? <modsnip> Allegedly "looking after" Bayley? And how did this person get the information? Did the police contact this person regarding information as to the suspect's whereabouts, habits, behaviour, etc? And for what reason did this person contact Bayley and tip him off?

And most of all - why did the police not think it worth following up on this and charging the public official?

They were lucky to find and arrest Bayley after that. And Bayley was silly enough to stay put - although he was under surveillance by then anyway.

The bit about returning to the scene of the murder is also intriguing - it would suggest that the murder did NOT occur in the suspect's car, but more likely to be somewhere such as down the bottom end of that laneway. I would presume that police quite probably have footage of Bayley's car leaving via Sydney Rd and then returning.

And if he went home to get a shovel, presumably the neighbour was mistaken when he referred to "two cars" turning up around 2am - it would have just been the one.

Lots to consider in that article.... thanks KG1

For those who can't get to the text of the article due to the paywall, try putting the headline

"Jill Meagher's accused murderer was warned of police probe"

without the quotes into Google, and the link should take you to the article.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dr. Watson :)
Here's a link from the Herald Sun
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...-of-police-probe/story-e6frf7kx-1226494761037

Police considered a review into whether the tip-off by the public official, which had the potential to obstruct the investigation, amounted to a serious breach. But after inquiries they decided not to take the matter further.

The Herald Sun believes a telephone intercept caught the official telling Mr Bayley there was "a serious investigation" being conducted into his activities.

We have a right to know who the Public Official is and there should be an Enquiry. Why did the Police decide not to take the matter further? <modsnip> and a Public Official tipped him off. You bet there should be an enquiry, and the Public Official should be stood down on the spot. This is so wrong on so many levels. :furious: You are so right Dr. Watson, there is much to consider in the article, that's for sure.
 
The Herald Sun link says police will allege she was raped and strangled in a Brunswick laneway shortly after the footage :(
Well, now that part's cleared up.
Strange that all this previously hidden information is coming out.
 
Well there is certainly something not right about this public official.

At the time of the alleged phone call from the public official, the case of Ms Meagher was still a missing persons case.
The homicide squad was angry its target was told that he was under suspicion.

It is not known how the public officer, who has access to sensitive information, became aware that Mr Bayley was a suspect.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...be/story-e6frfmq9-1226494761037#ixzz298m4coaO
 
LegallyBrunette said:
I wonder why two neighbours said 'cars', and the landlady said she heard nothing? Could have been a heavy sleeper though.
Click to expand...

Also by cars it could be that they heard multiple door closings - drivers door- boot - boot again and drivers door again. It always seems like more cars in the early hours. My OH sometimes sleeps right through noise that has me wide awake
 
I'm still curious how he knew Jill would turn down Hope St, because in the footage we see him stride past the boutique toward Hope St as though he has just spotted Jill, then returns slowly and approaches her.

How did he know to approach her just before she got to Hope St? How did he know her route wouldn't continue along the busy well-lit Sydney Rd?
 
Maigret said:
Also by cars it could be that they heard multiple door closings - drivers door- boot - boot again and drivers door again. It always seems like more cars in the early hours. My OH sometimes sleeps right through noise that has me wide awake
Click to expand...

Very good point Maigret - he would have driven up, got out of the car and shut the car door. Then gone to the shed or wherever, taken the shovel, back to the car, open the boot (trunk for our American friends), closed it, reopened the driver's door, got it, shut it, then driven off. And yes, you're quite right - that may well have been interpreted as more than one car by the neighbour.

Unless there WERE two cars..... ;) Just kidding - I hope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 77 more.
Total: 237 (members: 78, guests: 159)

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
159
Total visitors
237
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,634
Messages
18,242,712
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top