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 would think a PO. Unless he has some crooked 'friends' in the force, why would a cop do that?
As someone previously mentioned, that public servant surely has to be his PO? Why he would make that call, Zeus only knows.
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.
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
About bloody time!
I really don't know...what purpose is served other than ghoulish voyeurism in releasing all aspects of the autopsy?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?
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
As someone previously mentioned, that public servant surely has to be his PO? Why he would make that call, Zeus only knows.