GUILTY Australia - Morgan Huxley, 31, stabbed to death, Neutral Bay, NSW, 8 Sept 2013 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ausgirl said:
^ Morgan may also have had quite a lot to drink, being that he was at a celebration that day and still drinking til 1.30 am..

If DJK was being predatory, seeing Morgan stagger home in bare feet might have been the opportunity he was looking for.

DJk probably -wasn't- drunk, so who knows what was said to Morgan to get him to let DJK into the flat? I can't assume it was a sex thing on Morgan's behalf, there's not enough info to support that.. but in he got.

Morgan could've simply passed out half undressed and been attacked from there. Alcohol can be a powerful sedative, if you have enough of it.. he could have been oblivious at that point.

The power/sex motive on the perp's behalf seems pretty spot on to me, tho.
Click to expand...


I wonder after drinking, perhaps throughout the day, evening, how much was he really in the mood for sex
 
Ausgirl said:
^ Morgan may also have had quite a lot to drink, being that he was at a celebration that day and still drinking til 1.30 am..

If DJK was being predatory, seeing Morgan stagger home in bare feet might have been the opportunity he was looking for.

DJk probably -wasn't- drunk, so who knows what was said to Morgan to get him to let DJK into the flat? I can't assume it was a sex thing on Morgan's behalf, there's not enough info to support that.. but in he got.

Morgan could've simply passed out half undressed and been attacked from there. Alcohol can be a powerful sedative, if you have enough of it.. he could have been oblivious at that point.

The power/sex motive on the perp's behalf seems pretty spot on to me, tho.
Click to expand...

I'm simply putting forward the most likely explanation.

It is possible he was very drunk and Kelsall could have stalked, raped and killed him. It is pretty hard to get into the Oaks if you are have had too many. Getting in with bare feet? That is impressive so I guess it is possible.

I would be amazed if they turn out not to have established a relationship prior to the night. My money is he went to pub waiting for the guy to get off work and they have done it before. Mr Huxley obviously had a reputation of hanging with beautiful women and wanted to keep his other sexual desires as discrete as possible.

DK had probably been to his flat before, fantasised about it, acted it out in his mind and in RL minus the stabbing. Morgan was likely a sitting duck.
 
Good spot on the novel/kitchenhand thing, Yeawell.

It makes sense - DJK is a bit of a loner, eats out almost every meal - alone. Spends a lot of time gaming... I can see how he'd identify with that character, maybe wish he could follow a similar kind of path to success...

An alternative to the sex-crime angle is that Morgan represented everything DJK isn't - but desperately wanted to be. Envy, the other mortal sin. ;)
 
RE: The consentual theory:

I have previously mentioned but will mention again: living only a few blocks apart (and assuming DK lives alone, because noone has any solid information about what he did for a living etc) why would they choose to go back to Morgan's. His flatmate was on a girl's night out and could have come home at any time unannounced, could have even bought some of her friends home with her. She could have also bought her boyfriend home. Bedrooms were side by side. For someone who is not openly gay, the threat of being exposed would be high. Even if DK insisted, someone protecting their tendancies would not be likely to agree, even if drunk.

I don't believe that there was consentual sexual activity or promise of such.
 
Ausgirl said:
An alternative to the sex-crime angle is that Morgan represented everything DJK isn't - but desperately wanted to be. Envy, the other mortal sin. ;)
Click to expand...
My issue with this though, is that for envy to be at play he would really have had to have known Morgan. If so, what was the basis of the relationship?
 
Ausgirl said:
Quoting myself, ha - so, from what I can gather, this is not a direct view. Morgan's apt block can be seen, but not clearly. It's the next building up from the one that's across from the corner.

Still, it's close enough that just taking a few steps from that corner would make it easy for anyone keeping tabs on Morgan's home.

Certainly, a person could lurk about in Cheal Lane and have a clear view of who's coming and going up Watson St.
Click to expand...

Great pic, Ausgirl! :thumb:
 
jamie233 said:
RE: The consentual theory:

I have previously mentioned but will mention again: living only a few blocks apart (and assuming DK lives alone, because noone has any solid information about what he did for a living etc) why would they choose to go back to Morgan's. His flatmate was on a girl's night out and could have come home at any time unannounced, could have even bought some of her friends home with her. She could have also bought her boyfriend home. Bedrooms were side by side. For someone who is not openly gay, the threat of being exposed would be high. Even if DK insisted, someone protecting their tendancies would not be likely to agree, even if drunk.

I don't believe that there was consentual sexual activity or promise of such.
Click to expand...
This is the most interesting aspect of the story. Is such a double life compatible with a female flatmate? This is the only thing that suggests it may have not been consensual. However, the more likely explanation is that his flatmate knew and it was a shared secret (she was observing his privacy). Assuming this is the case he may well have known her intentions to bring back her gal pals or otherwise.
 
Police have said right from the get-go that there was evidence of sexual activity that night in Morgan's bedroom. I think we should remember that the original facts and evidence still remain the same. Just the perp is a guy, not a girl.

And we don't know that Morgan's friends/family did not know if he had any bisexual inclinations. They may well have known. For all we know it could be why he and JH broke up after so many years together. They aren't going to broadcast the fact if Morgan didn't want it broadcasted, especially with him working in the tough marine environment.

For my money, the simplest explanation is usually the best. And Boxhead's explanation is the simplest, to me.
 
BoxHead said:
I'm interested in this case because it has occurred just up the road from where I live. It looks relatively straight forward to me.

It appears to be a stock standard sexual power killing. The killer most likely gets a heightened sexual thrill by killing someone in the act of sex, or receives sexual gratification by killing.

It most likely started out as consensual sex. There was plenty of time to have a few rounds so to speak. Mr Huxley would have been comfortable in the killer's company and had his knife close at hand (obscured in his satchel). He likely was able to get his knife and stab Huxley in the neck while taking him from behind.

This is the simplest explanation.

Cheers
Click to expand...

:wagon: Boxhead! :welcome:

great to have more local perspective on this thread!

:seeya:
 
BoxHead said:
My issue with this though, is that for envy to be at play he would really have had to have known Morgan. If so, what was the basis of the relationship?
Click to expand...

If he'd been watching/stalking Morgan for a time, and I do think he had been, he'd have seen the cars, the boats, the women, many friends, all money people, beautiful people...

.. and perhaps via watching, he thought he did know Morgan, even if he didn't really. That's really a well documented stalker type of mentality. The crime was so much overkill, I cannot see DJK being in a very balanced state of mind. It's not a stretch, IMO, that he thought more was on offer than there really was.

Just to add - there could be years of loneliness, disappointment, frustration, rejection in those 28 stabs and slashes.. says to me a person very much on the edge (and well and truly over it, I should say).
 
Ausgirl said:
I'm kind of wondering how a guy who still lives at home is eating takeaway practically every meal, to the point where he gets special discounts at the pizza shop for eating there 5 x per week....

Maybe he just didn't spend a lot of time at home, for whatever reason. So maybe that's why they may not have known what he was doing.
Click to expand...

Because he was pretending to his parents that he was working in a restaurant and eating dinner at work?
 
Nikki_2 said:
We only know what a chefs kit is meant to contain, who knows what DK was actually carrying in that satchel,

In any case, something else that came to mind, if DK did not initially go to the unit with the intention of murder/robbery, & only for sex, I assume that what happened would have set anyone in a panic, DK did not just bolt, he was calm enough to not forget his satchel, murder weapon & obviously had a route lined up how to escape without being detected

What bothers me is, DK would have had to have known that MH had a flatmate, I don't think that even MH would have known what time she was going to come home, If DK stole from MH, why did he not go into RJ room to look for money, jewellry, etc
Click to expand...

Jumping off your post...

I googled "chef kit"... And as Sleuthers have posted here... Seems the primary chef tools are knives...

However ... On a website (can't link at the moment)... Chef kits can vary in the tools included outside of just knives...

Examples of tools, aside from knives, in the more thorough kits include...

Flavor baster

wine corkscrew

meat thermometer

etc...

wonder how "complete" DJK's chef kit was...

sounds like other multi-purpose tools which could easily become weapons could have been in his satchel, as well...

Hmmmm?

:waitasec:

JMO
 
jamie233 said:
RE: The consentual theory:

I have previously mentioned but will mention again: living only a few blocks apart (and assuming DK lives alone, because noone has any solid information about what he did for a living etc) why would they choose to go back to Morgan's. His flatmate was on a girl's night out and could have come home at any time unannounced, could have even bought some of her friends home with her. She could have also bought her boyfriend home. Bedrooms were side by side. For someone who is not openly gay, the threat of being exposed would be high. Even if DK insisted, someone protecting their tendancies would not be likely to agree, even if drunk.

I don't believe that there was consentual sexual activity or promise of such.
Click to expand...

I think DJK lived with his parents, so that would have been *awkward* and they were walking past Morgan's anyway.
 
Just tooling about on Google street view... there might actually be a back exit from those apts leading out to Cheal Lane. Right behind the Cooking School/restaurant area in Cheal Ln, there's little alleys and postboxes to the rear flats all along there.

I can't see if there's clear access through to Watson st from there though.

Aside from the many stalker-ish opportunities there (DJK I mean! Not me... :whistle: )... makes me wonder why, if they were after being uber-discreet, they wouldn't use/meet up in the lane rather than out on the main road where anyone could see (as CCTV did).
 
not sure if this was ever answered..

according to Cambridge:

theft
noun [C or U]
(the act of) dishonestly taking something which belongs to someone else and keeping it:


larceny
noun [C or U] LEGAL
stealing, especially (in the US) the crime of taking something that does not belong to you, without getting illegally into a building to do so


WHAT IS LARCENY?
Larceny is the "taking and carrying away of tangible personal property of another by trespass with intent to permanently (or for an unreasonable time) deprive the person of his interest in the property". Larceny must involve personal property, and it must be capable of being possessed, and carried away.
 
SheepMan said:
Some great posts as always.....I believe he could have worked at the school/cafe where he said he did but perhaps in a "cash in hand" position (either assistant chef or dishwasher) and that may be why the owner is saying he didn't work there (tax/employment law implications).

Also I would be interested to know how the police can prove the stolen money charge. If it was a small amount on the bed side table, how would they prove that without Morgan saying it was there (which he can't). The same goes for a large amount of money, but I doubt Morgan would have a large amount of money in his unit- still how do they prove that DJK stole it?

The fact they were seen in the same places a lot implies either DJK was stalking MH or they were known to each other (I think this is more likely). I guess it will all come out in the next few weeks/months.
Click to expand...
Jumping off your post...

Could the money have been for "services rendered" by DJK...

and...after the killing... He took the $$?

Just a thought...
 
What is freaky is DJK is walking around with a set of knives pretending he is a chef...pleasing his parents, living 'a dream'...

I also feel so sorry for his parents and sister amongst all this...can you imagine, he was LIVING with them through all this...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 51 more.
Total: 2,969 (members: 52, guests: 2,917)

Online statistics

Members online
52
Guests online
2,917
Total visitors
2,969
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,083
Messages
18,151,606
Members
231,641
Latest member
HelloKitty1298
Back
Top