GUILTY Australia - Jill Meagher, 29, Melbourne, 22 Sep 2012 #5

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ausgirl said:
Paulie. <modsnip>- are we allowed to talk about that now? Australian law makes it hard to openly discuss a case while it's being prosecuted..
Click to expand...

Ausgirl...while the case is before the courts, WS rules remain the same as per Salem's post on first page of this thread.
 
Paulie11 said:
I was wondering if someone could inform me as to whether if the accused (Adrian ernest bayley) were suspected in any other crimes (of rape or murder or missing persons), whether the public would have any opportunity to find out? Would the police, that is, have occasion to tell us about these suspicions of theirs? Given the callousness of this brutal crime against Jill Meagher, it seems to me that he might have done this before. This being possible, the police would surely look into recent suspicious missing persons cases to see if bayley could in any way be connected. They might find credible connections, though they might be unable to be substantiated in court. Provided that, it seems to me that we the public would be none-the-wiser as to those police suspicions, connections.
The only way I can see information of other suspicions coming to light is the police giving vague information to journalists who would slip it into their stories: police suspect him of other crimes, at least one of which was brutal in nature, etc. I can see this as the only avenue we would be likely to find out other connections. Further to this, would the judge be supplied with a confidential file as to what the police believe? Is that a common practice? What do others think about this? I don’t know how our legal and law system works and how the police and judiciary interact.

Finally, wasn’t there more information released at the initial hearing to which we, the public, are not privy? I am not sure why the judge had to have a several hour recess to have the police explain some things to the family members, before court proceeded. Was there some information released there in court which the media did not release?
Click to expand...

Hi Paulie11, I am catching up on a few pages. In Queensland years ago I was a juror on a murder trial. We found out after we said he was guilty that he had attempted murder of at least one other person previously. But as a juror, we could not be told this information. However one of the jury panel did know about this, but could not tell the rest of us. And after the arrest, the media was prohibited from discussing previous stuff.

Our legal system sometimes don't make sense, but as a juror, I was pleased that I had no prior knowledge of this person's behaviour and judged him purely on the information presented to me in court. I think probation and parole policy, procedures and personnel needs a complete overhaul. Do-gooders need to understand that some people or personalities simply can not be rehabilitated and these people should be keep away from mainstream society.
 
http://www.heraldsun.com.au
Families told parole system will be reformed to curb killers
James Dowling From: Herald Sun January 31, 2013 12:00AM
Government sources have revealed a stricter parole regime will be announced "sooner rather than later".
 
Jill Meagher accused back in court

Date January 31, 2013 - 4:50PM

A member of Victoria Police this afternoon made an application to interview the alleged murderer of Jill Meagher over possible criminal charges.

Magistrate Peter Reardon granted the application to interview the suspect and another to examine possible distinguishing mark that Adrian Ernest Bayley, 41, of Coburg, may have.

Mr Reardon made his decision after a two hour hearing in Melbourne Magistrates Court.

Bayley appeared via videolink from the Melbourne Assessment Prison.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/j...ck-in-court-20130131-2dn6v.html#ixzz2JX0zCf6G

BBM.

Very interesting indeed.
 
Makara said:
Jill Meagher accused back in court

Date January 31, 2013 - 4:50PM

A member of Victoria Police this afternoon made an application to interview the alleged murderer of Jill Meagher over possible criminal charges.

Magistrate Peter Reardon granted the application to interview the suspect and another to examine possible distinguishing mark that Adrian Ernest Bayley, 41, of Coburg, may have.

Mr Reardon made his decision after a two hour hearing in Melbourne Magistrates Court.

Bayley appeared via videolink from the Melbourne Assessment Prison.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/j...ck-in-court-20130131-2dn6v.html#ixzz2JX0zCf6G

BBM.

Very interesting indeed.
Click to expand...

Thanks Makara. However I am somewhat confused. Is this something new to Jill's case, or an unrelated case. And a second person???

What date is the committal?
 
BreakingNews said:
Thanks Makara. However I am somewhat confused. Is this something new to Jill's case, or an unrelated case. And a second person???

What date is the committal?
Click to expand...

I think the "another" in that sentence refers to "another application".

Not sure an actual date has been set as yet...will be some time in March.

And...

January 31, 2013

If he is committed to stand trial, that trial could go ahead as early as June, according to legal estimates

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...an-ernest-bayley/story-e6frg6n6-1226566115879
 
BreakingNews said:
Hi Paulie11, I am catching up on a few pages. In Queensland years ago I was a juror on a murder trial. We found out after we said he was guilty that he had attempted murder of at least one other person previously. But as a juror, we could not be told this information. However one of the jury panel did know about this, but could not tell the rest of us. And after the arrest, the media was prohibited from discussing previous stuff.
Click to expand...
thanks for the response, BreakingNews.
The bolded is around the issue was speaking about. There are prohibitions on media reporting, which often stand indefinitely, which is contrary to the well-being of the public by being beneficial to the perpetrators. It's unbelievable that the law is, in a sense, complicit in these crimes because it prevents full disclosure to the public.

Further, what i was really aiming at was how we the public find out 'hunches' which police have, or information which police just 'know'. i.e. the cops just know something happened, but have no proof, evidence, witness testimony, so the perpetrator gets off. We never find those things out, except in the case of the offender committing another crime, being caught, tried and successfully prosecuted, upon which we might get some revelations in a book or newspaper article alluding to suspected prior offences which were never proven, yet suspected by detectives. That is why sometimes years after the fact someone is charged on the strength of witness testimony or newly found hard-to-extract dna evidence from old artefacts- but until such time it is always a hunch. The public are kept in the dark about hunches, practically always (because it is slander or libel or whatever it's called), but also about facts, unless they are part of the facts in court, and even then they can be suppressed, as requested by either defence or prosecution, i suppose. Basically, we're stooged from all sides unless someone commits a crime in front of CCTV cameras and announces directly to the camera he did it. But even then they could argue temporary insanity, 'for who in their right mind would do this?' You'll always find one juror gullible enough to fall for the crap.
 
"A contested committal hearing on the charges will be heard in March."
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/j...ck-in-court-20130131-2dn6v.html#ixzz2JXTVavhX

does the 'contested' refer to when bayley's defence will be cross-examining a witness for the prosecution?

does this tie into the claims floating around the time of his last appearance that he will be pleading not guilty, at least to some of the prosecution's charges?

it seems like he might deny some charges based on how his cross-examination of the witness proceeds.

i wonder who this witness is. it seems like its one of the shop-owners, though i am not at all sure about that, for it could be the neighbour who heard doors slamming late that night or indeed anyone else while bayley was riding his way to allegedly do his evil deeds.
 
Is the committal March 12-13? I think I saw those dates somewhere.
 
http://www.heraldsun.com.au
Accused Jill Meagher killer Adrian Ernest Bayley faces fresh questioning by detectives
Paul Anderson From: Herald Sun January 31, 2013 4:46PM
... a dark designer-looking shirt? ... hands clasped on the desk in front of him? ... He apologised to Magistrate Peter Reardon for background noise
coming from outside the door behind him?...
IMO the charges before The Courts are 'grave'. We hope that those in power in our Courts of Law look beyond coached presentation/manners aimed at decision makers in the Court to the gravity of the alleged crime before them - in my honest opinion.
 
If he is the guy responsible for the St. Kilda assault, my bet is he was angered by the comments from the victim in the media labeling the perpetrator as 'pathetic', and took his offending to the next level, resulting in murder. IMO those comments should not have been published until the offender is caught, for the very reason I mentioned.

But of course, there are plenty of unsolved sexual assaults, and murders too might I add, that this can be in relation to. Just a wild guess on my part because, with the apprehension of Bayley, I have always had my suspicions in relation to the St. Kilda assault because he bears a striking resemblance to the photofit.
 
JGow said:
If he is the guy responsible for the St. Kilda assault, my bet is he was angered by the comments from the victim in the media labeling the perpetrator as 'pathetic', and took his offending to the next level, resulting in murder. IMO those comments should not have been published until the offender is caught, for the very reason I mentioned.
Click to expand...

i agree 100%. it's absolutely appalling that the police withhold information from the public regarding facts of the cases, yet they let information like that slip out; it's more than negligent. One can draw no other conclusion than to believe that he went the step further precisely because of those comments. I can't believe those antagonistic comments were released.
 
Paulie11 said:
i agree 100%. it's absolutely appalling that the police withhold information from the public regarding facts of the cases, yet they let information like that slip out; it's more than negligent. One can draw no other conclusion than to believe that he went the step further precisely because of those comments. I can't believe those antagonistic comments were released.
Click to expand...

We get told to withhold our opinions to placate a fair trial, but then they release an opinion on the offender! whilst I wholeheartedly agree with those opinions, what possible reason was there to make that available to the media?? It's antagonistic, like you said.

It seems our justice system really has let down Ms. Meagher. They should be held accountable; not just for that, but also for letting violent offenders with multiple, repeated convictions on the street, unmonitored. :furious:
 
I also seem to recall a flasher on a bike who wore a purple hoodie who had the same likeness to bayley. I wonder if in exposing himself he revealed some 'distinguishing marks' which are the subject of the latest round of questioning.
 
Paulie11 said:
"A contested committal hearing on the charges will be heard in March."
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/j...ck-in-court-20130131-2dn6v.html#ixzz2JXTVavhX

does the 'contested' refer to when bayley's defence will be cross-examining a witness for the prosecution?

does this tie into the claims floating around the time of his last appearance that he will be pleading not guilty, at least to some of the prosecution's charges?

it seems like he might deny some charges based on how his cross-examination of the witness proceeds.
Click to expand...

I think you are right Paulie that they use the word contested to mean the defence will want to cross examine one or more witnesses. I also think that lawyers generally advise their clients to go through a committal first and then, if committed they will advise them about plea options for each charge. So the accused may as well see what the evidence is first and test that evidence by cross examination at the committal. Nothing much is lost to a person charged in doing this. A guilty plea after a committal and well before a trial would still be considered an early plea by a sentencing judge.
 
Paulie11 said:
I also seem to recall a flasher on a bike who wore a purple hoodie who had the same likeness to bayley. I wonder if in exposing himself he revealed some 'distinguishing marks' which are the subject of the latest round of questioning.
Click to expand...

This one? http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/breaking-news-blog/victim-snaps-photo-of-flasher/20120530-1zhz9.html

I have seen a much clearer photo on the vicpol wanted website, you can easily see the man's face and the evil grin much more so than any other photo in the media online. From the clearer photo I was under the impression that that offender didn't have the same skin tone/complexion that ginger(Bailey)/red-haired people do. I'm almost persuaded to say he would have had dark hair, at a guess. Have a look at the clear photo on the vicpol website and let me know what you think!
 
JGow said:
This one? http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/breaking-news-blog/victim-snaps-photo-of-flasher/20120530-1zhz9.html

I have seen a much clearer photo on the vicpol wanted website, you can easily see the man's face and the evil grin much more so than any other photo in the media online. From the clearer photo I was under the impression that that offender didn't have the same skin tone/complexion that ginger(Bailey)/red-haired people do. I'm almost persuaded to say he would have had dark hair, at a guess. Have a look at the clear photo on the vicpol website and let me know what you think!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry i couldn't find the vicpol pic, though i personally believe this is bayley, it looks like him even though it does seem slightly different to him- that could just be owing to the contortions on his face while fastly peddling away. When you weigh up all of the small indicators- that he was wearing a hoodie (as he was in the meagher case), he was short and thin-to-stocky (he would appear thin when wearing a jumper, though stocky in a t-shirt), he was a sexual pervert/deviant/rapist type, which bayley allegedly is, it is the same area (coburg). It just all fits together.

I don't know if its just me, though if you look at this guy's knuckles, the pic of him on the bike, wrapped as they are around the handle-bars, it looks like he has thick knuckles and beefy hands which lends me to think he does some boxing or uses the punching bag and he uses weights (as we know bayley does) because one's palms grow thicker with weights to accomodate the heavy lifting- look at men who lift heavy weights and they'll more often than not have beefy/puffy palms (i guess through natural quasi-bruising/scarring of the tissue during the heavy lifting). If this isn't bayley, then i'll be damned. So much anecdotal evidence seems to point in his direction.

if this does turn out to be bayley, then why weren't the police checking their databases for pictures of known prior offenders who resembled this image currently living in the area. this is ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 152 more.
Total: 2,042 (members: 153, guests: 1,889)

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
1,889
Total visitors
2,042
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,231
Messages
18,184,405
Members
233,276
Latest member
bschultz26
Back
Top