Found Alive Australia - Terence Darrell Kelly, charged w/ abduction, 4 y.o. victim found alive, WA ,16 Oct 2021

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are prior criminal records not public information in Australia?
From post #1 of this thread:

Under Australian law, now that this individual has been charged, the case is under sub judice.

Please note: Under sub-judice, the following is not allowed:

Anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestions or direct accusations that the accused is either guilty or innocent (i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer", it has to be "the accused", the "alleged killer" or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges/lawyers, any officer of the Court)
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence.
Any non compliance with an Order of the court


If the alleged kidnapper has any priors that were public - they would now be sealed until after trial I think?

ETA: Changed wording to add "alleged"
 
Are prior criminal records not public information in Australia?

Any criminal record that the alleged perp may have cannot be published during sub judice.
This case is now under sub judice (because he has been charged), until the trial begins.

We will hear if there is a record. But it will be a while until that info is allowed to be published. MSM will pay for access to previous court records. (Publicly available, but there is a significant admin fee.)

imo
 
You guys have strong stomachs to wade through those FB accounts. I didn't last very long.

When I saw him I was reminded of one of the WT suspects. The one who was possibly transgender and involved with the church, I think. Does anyone remember his name?
 
The four officers who rescued CS are all fathers. (We have been told this already.)

They are playing the audio of the rescue a lot this morning on Ch 7 morning TV news.

It is so lovely hearing the officers speaking with CS at that house. "I've got you, bubby" "You're okay".

(Bubby is an Aussie endearment for 'baby')
 
Random thought, but it just occurred to me that the perpetrator may not have worn shoes when he took CS from the campsite. That would have enabled a stealthy and trackless operation. This could well be a normal habit. Just MOO.

New Zealanders and Aussies are world famous for going about the place barefoot (which does of course, still leave footprints)
 
I felt the exact same way. Not simply because of the dolls but the lengths he went to to concoct a total fantasy/role playing life.

I also wonder to much of an extent other guys like this with the same predilection involve in messaging and commenting with one another using their fake identities with stolen (or real) child images.

The world is seriously a dark place underneath it all.

One of the other doll guys he was Facebook friends with changed his facebook banner and icon to say not to message him, that he just likes dolls (and dressing up) himself but is NOT a paedophile and was only friends with TK as far as him being a doll collector.
 
Are prior criminal records not public information in Australia?
As you know, in any western country, Crime is public. You commit crime , you can have no expectation of privacy, once you have been found to have sufficient reason to be charged with the crime or felony.

Police, courts, judges, magistrates, prisons, etc, all are paid for out of the public purse, because the public wants it that way, and consequently the public actually owns the information.

So that's the long answer. The short answer is yes, it can be found if his prior case went into case law.



It is incumbent upon a member if the jury to not seek out that information though. A persons prior convictions can only be exposed to the jury and the public after their verdict on the present case is reached.
 
From post #1 of this thread:

Under Australian law, now that this individual has been charged, the case is under sub judice.

Please note: Under sub-judice, the following is not allowed:

Anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestions or direct accusations that the accused is either guilty or innocent (i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer", it has to be "the accused", the "alleged killer" or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges/lawyers, any officer of the Court)
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence.
Any non compliance with an Order of the court


If the alleged kidnapper has any priors that were public - they would now be sealed until after trial I think?

ETA: Changed wording to add "alleged"
Correct. I was a jury member on a murder trial and we had no idea of his previous crimes. Attempted murder.
 
The amount of people expressing sympathy for this perp because his dolls are displayed so nice is blowing my mind. She was taken from her parents for 18 days with zero intention of letting her go!

She basically may have BEEN a doll. He collected her for his collection.

The crime for which he’s been charged with combined with the FB posts should be raising massive red flags.
 
BBM

This article contains a news video (part way down the page). At the 3:13 mark they show dashcam video of the alleged perp's arrest.

The police stopped the vehicle (at 11:24pm) on Robinson Street, got him out of the car, and put him on the ground .. "pinned him to the ground".

At the 3:50 mark the presenter says "Police believe he was at the blowholes campsite on October 16 to commit small-time theft."

dashcam shows dramatic moment alleged-abductor-arrested-7news
 
Last edited:
Speaking of creeps I wish the media would stop showing pics/footage of CS leaving her house today. She's been through enough, I find it revolting they are camping outside waiting for a photo opp it makes me sick.

So agree. Someone respected should make that point known. People may not understand that this continued attention is not good. I think that hospital picture was more than sufficient and after that she should have been allowed to live privately. But now at least. Press needs to back off. I hope there is a willingness to do that. Make it clear that ANY continued coverage is detrimental to her. Wonder if it could also be seen as impacting defendants right to a fair trial? Can the Judge there restrict the press coverage of her based on the case? I mean, does he have the power to do so?
 
I don’t want to come across like I’m sympathising or excusing any part of what CS and her family have gone through over the past 18 days I just want to make that clear. I am simply interested in the suspects psyche because this is a case like no other I've ever come across before. I am just speculating and brainstorming what could cause this type of behaviour in relation to the dolls and multiple online personas.

I am also trying to consider this from a non sexually motivated stand point. In crimes such as this that are not motivated by perverse desires, they are sometimes a combination of childhood trauma, life experiences, personality disorders, mental illness.

From what we’ve heard so far he could check a few boxes for an avoidant personality, but the information on his background is pretty limited. It’s been reported his grandmother raised him which suggests his mother was not present, this could indicate an attachment disorder that was triggered in childhood. It may not be purely sexually motivated, and I hope for the victims sake it wasn’t.

Trying to tread carefully I hope this discussion is allowed xx
 
So agree. Someone respected should make that point known. People may not understand that this continued attention is not good. I think that hospital picture was more than sufficient and after that she should have been allowed to live privately. But now at least. Press needs to back off. I hope there is a willingness to do that. Make it clear that ANY continued coverage is detrimental to her. Wonder if it could also be seen as impacting defendants right to a fair trial? Can the Judge there restrict the press coverage of her based on the case? I mean, does he have the power to do so?

They did in the George Pell case.
 
The amount of people expressing sympathy for this perp because his dolls are displayed so nice is blowing my mind. She was taken from her parents for 18 days with zero intention of letting her go!

She basically may have BEEN a doll. He collected her for his collection.

The crime for which he’s been charged with combined with the FB posts should be raising massive red flags.
Colossal, gigantic flags, redder than red could ever be. The chasm between a 'doll collector' and a child abductor is so wide , so deep, so Mariana Trench deep, weaving the two actions together and making it harmless is outrageous.

His pixel 'life, ' and his pixel 'friends' and his truly malignant pixel persona adds to the redness and largeness of those flags. He invested what looks like all his disposable time on creating fictional characters, whom he claimed as family, who he then interacted with, and made 'them', 'interact' with each other, .. real people must have been anathema to him, and this little girl was a real person. Not a doll. Not for collecting. Not for displaying. A person, in her own right, living her own life as she is entitled to.

Same way he is entitled to his life, collecting ugly dolls until the cows come home, but the moment he steps over that line and impinges on someone elses life, .. Massive. Red. Flag.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
2,877
Total visitors
3,008

Forum statistics

Threads
599,927
Messages
18,101,734
Members
230,956
Latest member
Bloocheez
Back
Top