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

[Paulie11]

My condolences about your dad, FruitTingles.

 

[voxpop]

Got to be a cop?

MOO.

 

[Love Coco]

Yes, that's also possible. Maybe it's tragically coincidental that she had to turn down that street I think it was Ovens Rd which is the laneway before Lux Way. I.e the horribly creepy laneway where her bag was found. I thought he may have had that laneway in mind for the attack all along.

Now that we know she was strangled, I think about that article where the woman said she was threatened near the same spot (the nunchucks story).

http://www.smh.com.au/national/it-could-have-been-me-20120929-26skp.html

I think the nunchucks guy sounds mentally ill. AB comes across as more calculating, IMO.. from the little that we know.

 

[Love Coco]

I would think a PO.

Unless AB has some crooked 'friends' in the force, why would a cop do that?

 

[oz_sleuth]

I would think a PO. Unless he has some crooked 'friends' in the force, why would a cop do that?

I emailed the Office of Police Integrity, and demand that they name they pubclicly name the official and that he be arrested and jailed for alerting AB to the investigation.

What a disgrace it would be if this was swept under the rug.


http://www.opi.vic.gov.au/index.php?i=70&m=56&t=1

 

[KG1]

As someone previously mentioned, that public servant surely has to be his PO? Why he would make that call, Zeus only knows.

I agree with you on this. If that public official recognized AB in the CCT footage, then the phone call to him may well have been an attempt by the official to see what he had to say for himself - in relation to telling him that he was under serious investigation.

However, it was an unwise move as he could have fled and gone into hiding. However, he is pretty brazen, given that he left his victim, Jill, in the laneway and returned to remove her. Very bizarre. Perhaps his original intent was rape only, and then matters escalated and he murdered her. MOO

 

[Love Coco]

For some reason the police aren't seeing it has a serious breech, or they'd surely have done more about it (we hope). I could see a P.O checking up on AB by telephone, trying to assert that he knows he's been up to no good, and to ABs denial somehow slipping 'look I know for a fact you're under investigation' (but without specifically saying it is the Jill case). My feeling is that what transpired might have been a mistake or an effort to get AB to talk, not a heads up.

 

[theblackwatch]

For some reason the police aren't seeing it has a serious breech, or they'd surely have done more about it (we hope). I could see a P.O checking up on AB by telephone, trying to assert that he knows he's been up to no good, and to ABs denial somehow slipping 'look I know for a fact you're under investigation' (but without specifically saying it is the Jill case). My feeling is that what transpired might have been a mistake or an effort to get AB to talk, not a heads up.

Agreed - this scenario makes the most sense to me, especially as no charges or further investigation have occurred. I guess PO's can form a fairly close relationship with their "clients", so maybe the phone call was possibly even sanctioned by the police in an effort to casually extract more info from AB?

 

[Curiousasacat]

Interestingly ninemsn has cop written on the front page of the article-
"Man charged with ABC employee's rape and murder 'warned by cop'"
In the actual article though they only refer to the person as a public official.

So if it was a policeman who tipped him off I CAN NOT understand why this has not been taken further.
I don't want people in our police force who tip off a murderous raping monster. Sounds to me that this "cop" may have helped him out before.
Very suspicious in my opinion.

Link - http://ninemsn.com.au/

 

[Curiousasacat]

I emailed the Office of Police Integrity, and demand that they name they pubclicly name the official and that he be arrested and jailed for alerting AB to the investigation.

What a disgrace it would be if this was swept under the rug.


http://www.opi.vic.gov.au/index.php?i=70&m=56&t=1

Good for you! I love that you did this : )

 

[Sage1]

About bloody time!

Does this mean his DNA had never been cross-checked previously, or not on file until now? I am working on the assumption that all DNA samples are cross-checked wherever the offender/s is unknown but where DNA has been collected.

 

[marlywings]

14th October,2012

QUEENSLAND'S most senior judge has warned that social media lynch mobs could help the accused beat their charges.
Weighing into the social media debate, Chief Justice Paul de Jersey has raised concerns about the "extreme" information posted on the internet about accused awaiting trial.

The lawyer for the Morcombe family, Peter Boyce, said his clients had asked the public not to publish information that could interfere with the impending trial.

Victorian police last week asked the public not to post prejudicial comments about the death of Melbourne woman Jill Meagher

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...social-media-use/story-e6freon6-1226495023545

 

[Paul mcGovern]

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?

I really don't know...what purpose is served other than ghoulish voyeurism in releasing all aspects of the autopsy?
The cause of death can be relevant in as far as other victims of an offender may elect to come forward if they have been threatened with the same manner of death suffered by a victim...in the Cobby case,the book by Julia Shepherd is accurate and definitive...where I have an issue is people for reasons of self aggrandizement invent atrocities perpetrated on the victim...the prosecutor was very specific in asking if there had been any genital mutilation or insertion of objects such as bottles etc...and the answer was no.
I can't answer the other questions as I have no idea.

 

[DrWatson]

QUEENSLAND'S most senior judge has warned that social media lynch mobs could help the accused beat their charges.
Weighing into the social media debate, Chief Justice Paul de Jersey has raised concerns about the "extreme" information posted on the internet about accused awaiting trial.

My only comments are that

(a) the legal profession generally (and it IS a generalization, I know) seem to insult the intelligence of the public, by insinuating that they are not able to think for themselves, especially under instruction in a court situation.

(b) if the defence team are so concerned about the possible preconceptions of a jury, then they can request a judge-only trial - that is, if they trust the judges to be able to think for themselves

(c) as I have said before, trying to suppress social media is like trying to put a lid on a pile of eels without a box to put them in - get used to it!

(d) it's a bit difficult to allow the presumption of innocence when the accused led detectives to the body. As to the question of intent, and the defence trying to argue that the death was an unintended consequence of the accused's actions - I fail to see how social media, or any media, can pre-argue against any evidence that will be used in court.

I really do think that the high and mighty legal powers may well be laying the groundwork for a claim that the accused "cannot" get a fair trial. Which in turn, presumes that there will be a "Not Guilty" plea.

I really do think that the judiciary and the legal system need to be brought up to date and learn how to cope with the real world situation as it exists in the 21st century, and to credit the potential jurors with a modicum of intelligence and objectivity.

Even to the point of having a professional jury foreman or supervisor in the jury room to guide things but not influence things. I don't know if that would work, or satisfy those who think that juries are somehow going to act like lynch mobs behind closed doors.

 

[cluciano63]

My only comments are that

(a) the legal profession generally (and it IS a generalization, I know) seem to insult the intelligence of the public, by insinuating that they are not able to think for themselves, especially under instruction in a court situation.

(b) if the defence team are so concerned about the possible preconceptions of a jury, then they can request a judge-only trial - that is, if they trust the judges to be able to think for themselves

(c) as I have said before, trying to suppress social media is like trying to put a lid on a pile of eels without a box to put them in - get used to it!

(d) it's a bit difficult to allow the presumption of innocence when the accused led detectives to the body. As to the question of intent, and the defence trying to argue that the death was an unintended consequence of the accused's actions - I fail to see how social media, or any media, can pre-argue against any evidence that will be used in court.

I really do think that the high and mighty legal powers may well be laying the groundwork for a claim that the accused "cannot" get a fair trial. Which in turn, presumes that there will be a "Not Guilty" plea.

I really do think that the judiciary and the legal system need to be brought up to date and learn how to cope with the real world situation as it exists in the 21st century, and to credit the potential jurors with a modicum of intelligence and objectivity.

Even to the point of having a professional jury foreman or supervisor in the jury room to guide things but not influence things. I don't know if that would work, or satisfy those who think that juries are somehow going to act like lynch mobs behind closed doors.

I agree. I think for the most part jurors take their tasks very seriously and do not go in with the idea to "get" the suspect. They want to make the evidence is there. I have seen many cases here in the US where people were acquitted and felt deep down that they person was guilty, but had to agree that the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes, jurors have been interviewed after a case and even said that they "knew" the person was guilty, but that they had to vote for acquittal because the evidence was not quite strong enough. I really think jurors work very hard, and that people are not given enough credit if it is presumed that they will be so swayed by Facebook, etc..

 

[DrWatson]

I agree. I think for the most part jurors take their tasks very seriously and do not go in with the idea to "get" the suspect. They want to make the evidence is there. I have seen many cases here in the US where people were acquitted and felt deep down that they person was guilty, but had to agree that the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes, jurors have been interviewed after a case and even said that they "knew" the person was guilty, but that they had to vote for acquittal because the evidence was not quite strong enough. I really think jurors work very hard, and that people are not given enough credit if it is presumed that they will be so swayed by Facebook, etc..

Don't forget another difference between our systems - our jurors are anonymous, and they don't go public afterwards. I think it's actually forbidden to do so. We don't get those awful interviews that you guys get, with a juror spilling the beans as to what went on in the jury room, what everyone thought, why they gave the verdict they did, etc etc. We just don't get that, and to be honest, I hope we never do.

 

[scarlett_vendetta]

I really do think that the high and mighty legal powers may well be laying the groundwork for a claim that the accused "cannot" get a fair trial. Which in turn, presumes that there will be a "Not Guilty" plea.

I think that regardless of the whole social media/fair trial aspect his legal representatives will be looking for not guilty to murder and angling for manslaughter (in that, he only intended to rape, not kill) instead.

 

[Bayside]

For some reason the police aren't seeing it has a serious breech, or they'd surely have done more about it (we hope). I could see a P.O checking up on AB by telephone, trying to assert that he knows he's been up to no good, and to ABs denial somehow slipping 'look I know for a fact you're under investigation' (but without specifically saying it is the Jill case). My feeling is that what transpired might have been a mistake or an effort to get AB to talk, not a heads up.

Exactly what I think happened too.

 

[cluciano63]

Don't forget another difference between our systems - our jurors are anonymous, and they don't go public afterwards. I think it's actually forbidden to do so. We don't get those awful interviews that you guys get, with a juror spilling the beans as to what went on in the jury room, what everyone thought, why they gave the verdict they did, etc etc. We just don't get that, and to be honest, I hope we never do.

I wish jurors would not speak out afterward, I find it sickening myself. They have a choice and too many cannot resist their fifteen minutes. I too wish there was a law against jurors speaking about a case afterward.

 

[they'll get you]

As someone previously mentioned, that public servant surely has to be his PO? Why he would make that call, Zeus only knows.

The Perp owned up quickly...possibly it was 'good cop, bad cop'. The public servant befriended him, gained his confidence and AB confessed quickly.

Well it happens on TV?