Australia Australia - Two Female Backpackers attacked at Salt Creek, SA, 9 Feb 2016

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
It isn't the fact that he had both a knife and hammer as neither of these were found despite searches for them.

I have seen the recent ABC article that says no knife or hammer were found, but I have also seen this.

bg9pqg.jpg

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...d/news-story/e678e0db771c3931132df139f6285b73
 
I have seen the recent ABC article that says no knife or hammer were found, but I have also seen this.

bg9pqg.jpg

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...d/news-story/e678e0db771c3931132df139f6285b73
Now that picture is confusing. Is this a random pic taken of RH's vehicle and the equipment inside which proves he had these hammers on this camping trip but were lost during the night of the attack? Could one of the women posing at the front for a pic and these hammers can be seen in the background or to the side? There looks to be blood on the first hammer but if they weren't found? Prosecution says they're bloodstained? :waitasec:
What happens if the hammers and knife are eventually found?
 
Apologies but I just noticed an error that needs to be corrected in #503:

"You also have to take into account the non-parole period. If she sentenced him to, say, 25 years with a non-parole period of 20 years, he can apply for (bail) parole after 20 years, but that's not to say he'd get it".
 
Now that picture is confusing. Is this a random pic taken of RH's vehicle and the equipment inside which proves he had these hammers on this camping trip but were lost during the night of the attack? Could one of the women posing at the front for a pic and these hammers can be seen in the background or to the side? There looks to be blood on the first hammer but if they weren't found? Prosecution says they're bloodstained? :waitasec:
What happens if the hammers and knife are eventually found?

I don't get it either. Whose blood is on that hammer? Did one of the girls get a picture after it was used, as proof? Then it disappeared? Or is the reporting incorrect and they did find the hammer? (Though it looks more like a mallet to me.) It doesn't say when the picture was taken. But how would the police have taken the picture prior to the attack? And how would they have obtained a random picture?

It is hard to tell exactly how much time went by during the attacks, what the girls were able to achieve in that time ... other than trying hard to save their own lives, that is.
 
I am not disagreeing with anyone here about that. I am just trying to see why a jury was unable to find him guilty of attempted murder. Whatever was presented to them evidently left room for doubt about the intent, or some aspect of the charge.
I am sure they were all as horrified as anyone about the attacks. They found him guilty of everything else. They must have been struggling with something in this regard, as they asked the judge for clarification.

Who knows? Perhaps the victim was asked if he told her he was going to kill her, and she said no, he just yelled at me to stop. I don't know. But there was something(s) that left room for some reasonable doubt. Otherwise he would have gone down for that too. They certainly did not appear to be trying to save this creep from many, many years in prison - he will get that, for sure.

It is too easy to judge the jury, but I wouldn't want their job in a case like this ... not in a million years. Because they must try to remain unemotional and just consider the facts as presented to them and as are allowed.


It took 12 hours of deliberations for the jury to reach their verdict, and in that time they asked Judge Trish Kelly for clarification around the intention to kill in relation to the attempted murder charge.
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/03/25/14/58/salt-creek-jury-returns
And I dont disagree with you either. I just have a feeling that it came down to "... if he wanted to kill them, he would have." For me there is no other explanation for how anyone in their right mind could not see intent in his actions. What they clearly did not take into consideration was the fact that their survival had nothing to do with the perpetrator but everything to do with the victims. There are plenty of people who would have died in that situation because their will to fight wouldnt have been the same and that's what it came down to. This was a man who was into bondage not blood, so once his actions turned to striking her with the hammer or running into her its clear his intent had changed.

How anyone could think that someone taking a hammer to the head of a female you are trying to rape is only wanting to severely hurt her but not kill her is insane. What person has that sort of precision? To hit her just hard enough to hurt her but not kill her, anyone taking a hammer to someones skull has intent to kill. I understand it must be hard to be on a jury and stay objective not emotional but this is just beyond my comprehension and goes against logic.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
 
RSBM

I don't know that we have an attempted murder category. (And keep in mind that life does not mean life, in Australia :shakehead: )

See link for complete list:

http://www.lsc.sa.gov.au/dsh/print/ch11.php

More comprehensive list here ... still no Attempted Murder ... just variations with a similar result.
http://www.lsc.sa.gov.au/dsh/media/...on Act 1935 penalties as at November 2014.pdf

Hi South Aussie,

RH was acquitted of attempted murder so no need to worry about that.

You need to look at the relevant sections of the Act for each specific offence. I’ll repost them here re each offence together with the sentences. I’ve amended my previous kidnapping sentence – it’s now a few years longer.

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT 1935.aspx

Select the Current PDF document.

You’ll note that there are numbers at both the top and bottom of each page. Use the page numbers at the foot of the page. Please note that the ellipsis (...) indicates that I’ve omitted parts that aren’t relevant, but you can go to each page to read it full.

p.17 Aggravated assault
20—Assault
...
(4) A person who commits an assault that causes harm to another is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty:
...
(b) for an aggravated offence (except one to which paragraph (c) applies)—imprisonment for 4 years;
(c) for an offence aggravated by the use of, or a threat to use, an offensive weapon—imprisonment for 5 years.

pp.19-20 Aggravated attempt causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm s
23—Causing serious harm
(1) A person who causes serious harm to another, intending to cause serious harm, is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty:
...
(b) for an aggravated offence—imprisonment for 25 years.

p.20 - Causing harm with intent to cause harm
24—Causing harm
(1) A person who causes harm to another, intending to cause harm, is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty:
(a) for a basic offence—imprisonment for 10 years;

pp.20-21 – Endangering life
29—Acts endangering life or creating risk of serious harm
(1) Where a person, without lawful excuse, does an act or makes an omission—
(a) knowing that the act or omission is likely to endanger the life of another; and
...
that person is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty:
(a) for a basic offence—imprisonment for 15 years;

p.27 Aggravated kidnapping
39—Kidnapping
(1) A person who takes or detains another person, without the other person's consent—
...
(b) with the intention of committing an indictable offence against the other person or a third person,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty:
...
(b) for an aggravated offence—imprisonment for 25 years.

p.34 – Indecent assault
“56—Indecent assault
(1) A person who indecently assaults another is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty:
(a) for a basic offence—imprisonment for 8 years;

Read post 503 on p.34 re non-parole and additional comment.
 
Nice little article by The Australian .... saying that Salt Creek (population 25) is returning to normal. They spoke to the roadhouse owner, who was the first person called and who helped detain the man, and then called police.

He says that they are still hiring backpackers in the area, and “At the end of the day, he wasn’t from Salt Creek, the girls weren’t from Salt Creek, it was a set-up done in the city. Salt Creek is a pretty safe place and within two hours of the incident he was handcuffed to the front of my car.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...t/news-story/74e57b887dcb87b0d927161e1bdbcf3f
 
I'm following a double murder of two young girls in Delphie US. One victim took a photo and audio of him and the crime before she and her friend were murdered.

Many on the forum can't understand how possibly one man could subdue or control two females at once. Well they should look at this backpacker thread, it might give some ideas.
The thread is so frenzied the mods close it down every night (their time).
LE have the property owner detained on other charges....sounding familiar....and LE is not warning people there's a madman loose which IMO is the signal they have their man BUT many believe it's not him.

This is a double murder, thankfully our backpackers survived thanks to angels close by.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...iberty-German-14-Delphi-13-Feb-2017-39/page11
 
I'm following a double murder of two young girls in Delphie US. One victim took a photo and audio of him and the crime before she and her friend were murdered.

Many on the forum can't understand how possibly one man could subdue or control two females at once. Well they should look at this backpacker thread, it might give some ideas.
The thread is so frenzied the mods close it down every night (their time).
LE have the property owner detained on other charges....sounding familiar....and LE is not warning people there's a madman loose which IMO is the signal they have their man BUT many believe it's not him.

This is a double murder, thankfully our backpackers survived thanks to angels close by.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...iberty-German-14-Delphi-13-Feb-2017-39/page11

I've been lurking in the thread and noticed the closures each day. That picture of the suspect is haunting, he's casually strolling ready to strike within moments it seems. Absolutely shocking case. Is it the land owner or is he elderly? I'm not allowed to ask?
 
I've been lurking in the thread and noticed the closures each day. That picture of the suspect is haunting, he's casually strolling ready to strike within moments it seems. Absolutely shocking case. Is it the land owner or is he elderly? I'm not allowed to ask?

Landowner is 77 & IMO a fit young 77. The girls were hiking and coincidently he and the neighbours have made complaints to council regarding trespassers in the past. My hinky thinks LE have their man, same hoody style clothing, same camo hat & jeans but the funny thing is they recon 90% of men wear exactly the same clothing. Sheesh! clones everywhere! :floorlaugh:
(I wouldn't dare share my humour over there).
 
Landowner is 77 & IMO a fit young 77. The girls were hiking and coincidently he and the neighbours have made complaints to council regarding trespassers in the past. My hinky thinks LE have their man, same hoody style clothing, same camo hat & jeans but the funny thing is they recon 90% of men wear exactly the same clothing. Sheesh! clones everywhere! :floorlaugh:
(I wouldn't dare share my humour over there).

You're right about that. I was following that case from the day it started but I had to leave and just check on it occasionally during the day. I couldn't handle some of the sniping and snapping. People here are very nice tho! :loveyou:

Regarding this guy, RH, I find it very disturbing that some of the info that was suppressed regarding previous things that he had done - meeting other young ladies, basically trolling around this gumdrop website, etc., could have been information that the jury - in my opinion - needed to know. Here, they will try to get stuff like that admitted to show a pattern of behavior - especially if that behavior is starting to escalate. I shudder to think how many times really important stuff, as far as I'm concerned, is suppressed. I know as a juror, I would have been mad as %#@& if I found out AFTER the fact, that the guy on trial had made a habit of doing these types of things and was showing signs of escalation.
 
You're right about that. I was following that case from the day it started but I had to leave and just check on it occasionally during the day. I couldn't handle some of the sniping and snapping. People here are very nice tho! :loveyou:

Regarding this guy, RH, I find it very disturbing that some of the info that was suppressed regarding previous things that he had done - meeting other young ladies, basically trolling around this gumdrop website, etc., could have been information that the jury - in my opinion - needed to know. Here, they will try to get stuff like that admitted to show a pattern of behavior - especially if that behavior is starting to escalate. I shudder to think how many times really important stuff, as far as I'm concerned, is suppressed. I know as a juror, I would have been mad as %#@& if I found out AFTER the fact, that the guy on trial had made a habit of doing these types of things and was showing signs of escalation.

Thanks for the heads up on the trolling and behaviour it just confirms my hinky.
 
You're right about that. I was following that case from the day it started but I had to leave and just check on it occasionally during the day. I couldn't handle some of the sniping and snapping. People here are very nice tho! :loveyou:

Regarding this guy, RH, I find it very disturbing that some of the info that was suppressed regarding previous things that he had done - meeting other young ladies, basically trolling around this gumdrop website, etc., could have been information that the jury - in my opinion - needed to know. Here, they will try to get stuff like that admitted to show a pattern of behavior - especially if that behavior is starting to escalate. I shudder to think how many times really important stuff, as far as I'm concerned, is suppressed. I know as a juror, I would have been mad as %#@& if I found out AFTER the fact, that the guy on trial had made a habit of doing these types of things and was showing signs of escalation.

The govt in this state tried to get previous crimes and behaviours to be allowed in court, back in 2010. Unfortunately, their proposal was not accepted.

Our judicial system in Australia thinks that it is enough for the judge to (quietly) know about priors - and will supposedly take that into consideration during sentencing. Though with some of the very weak sentences imposed nationwide, it is hard to believe that even that kind of consideration happens!


The recently re-elected South Australian government has thrown a law and order cat among the civil libertarian pigeons. It wants juries to hear about an accused's prior criminal history.

Will this give jurors the complete picture and lead to better outcomes? Or will jurors start presuming guilt - gutting the whole idea of a fair trial?

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...d-jurors-hear-about-an-accuseds-prior/3038814
 
Sean Fewster is the Chief Court Reporter for the Advertiser. He answers some questions about the case in the link below

https://www.facebook.com/seanfewster/posts/1311782398858046

Thanks for that, Amee! I very much respect Sean Fewster and his experienced opinions.


".... we can only really ever speculate on why a jury did or did not reach a particular verdict, as their deliberations are private and jurors can't be interviewed. Based on the questions that were asked, my speculation is the jury were concerned that the German had "only" skull lacerations, not fractures, and whether that damage was consistent with a deliberate intent and attempt to murder. The four-wheel drive allegations were not part of the attempted murder charge - they were charged separately as endangering life."


"..... Believe it or not, it's very common for evidence not to be led at trial - judges have to decide what can and cannot be balanced, before a jury, in order to ensure they bring back an unbiased decision. There's also the question of relevance: in this case, the Japanese backpacker was not harmed, so defence was able to argue the evidence was irrelevant to what happened at Salt Creek. Unfortunately, I can't help you with the reasons for the suppression... to discuss them would breach the order."
 
I understand completely not wanting to bias a jury. Absolutely. But i feel that in the case of a sexual predator or a sexually motivated offender, they, in many cases, establish a pattern of behavior early and tend to stick to it. Or escalate to more horrendous acts to acieve the same thrill. I think in any case involving a sex crime, prior behavior should be allowed. JMO. Jurors are human and can only follow the directions given to them. I was reading a case today where a 16 year old gave birth and tossed the baby out the window. She was not tried as an adult but given counseling and supervised outside the home. Seriously?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
 
I understand completely not wanting to bias a jury. Absolutely. But i feel that in the case of a sexual predator or a sexually motivated offender, they, in many cases, establish a pattern of behavior early and tend to stick to it. Or escalate to more horrendous acts to acieve the same thrill. I think in any case involving a sex crime, prior behavior should be allowed. JMO. Jurors are human and can only follow the directions given to them. I was reading a case today where a 16 year old gave birth and tossed the baby out the window. She was not tried as an adult but given counseling and supervised outside the home. Seriously?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

BBM

I totally agree. Whilst I totally believe that most people can change their path and alter their lives at any point, I think sex offenders are a different kettle of fish. And generally, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.......

It always blows my mind that here in Australia so much is kept from the jury. The past should totally be considered imo.
 
Yes. Like Brett Peter Cowan who murdered Daniel Morcombe, during the inquest he was only known as a number and then after the trial the jury were gobsmacked at his disgusting priors.

Thank God he got life due to the persistency of our cops' underhanded tricks and a devoted family.

Mr & Mrs Morcombe rock!!
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
145
Guests online
2,892
Total visitors
3,037

Forum statistics

Threads
603,095
Messages
18,151,859
Members
231,642
Latest member
Avah
Back
Top