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

[they'll get you]

It took the jury 12 hours of deliberations to reach their verdict, seeking clarification from Judge Trish Kelly on several occasions about the intent to kill required for the attempted murder charge.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sa/a/34789307/man-guilty-of-attacking-backpackers-in-sa/#page1

 

[MsAnais]

I just don't get it, was this jury on happy gas?
He ran over her MULTUPLE TIMES, CLOUTED HER WITH A HAMMER AROUND HER HEAD SEVERAL TIMES.


The SA Supreme Court jury delivered its verdict on Saturday, finding the man guilty of six charges including indecent assault, aggravated kidnapping and endangering life.

But he was acquitted of attempted murder, with the 11 jurors instead finding him guilty of the lesser charge of aggravated attempted causing serious harm with intent.

I hear you TGY. It makes no sense to me either.

 

[aequitas]

I hear you TGY. It makes no sense to me either.

me either. It is like the jury thought the fact they SURVIVED meant there was no intent. I find this devastating as a woman. So he was just hitting her on the head with a hammer, and he had all those weapons in his pants just because.... He intended to "harm" but not kill them... And then drive them home safe! This is ludicrous.

 

[they'll get you]

And this isn't attempted murder? The fisherman though she was dark skinned...because she was covered in blood.

OH if I was on that jury it would have been a different outcome!

Max Harrison, a fisherman from Victoria who helped the German woman, said: “We couldn’t honestly tell if the figure was male or female. I thought it was dark-skinned from a distance” when she emerged from a gold-*coloured car in the sand dunes.

“She wasn’t running, she was struggling to walk a bit because she said she’d been hit by a car,’’ he said. She had a tennis-ball-sized lump on her head with a lot of blood coming out.

“It was very overwhelming. She told us it was something out of a horror movie, she’d been hit on the head with a hammer, hit by a car and driven over.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...l/news-story/17ebdc8f008a7e0a3a7b72013052f626

 

[they'll get you]

Thank God for these men. You guys are angels.

Roadhouse owner Adam Stewart, left, and fishermen Andre Saul, Max Harrison, Jack Dowson and Nick Campbell at court yesterday.



Shame on this jury.

 

[cool12]

A previously unseen photo has surfaced.

[url]http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/25/man-guilty-attacking-backpackers-sa[/URL]

that certainly helps understand how she managed to stay up there for so long.
TY

 

[laserdisc10]

me either. It is like the jury thought the fact they SURVIVED meant there was no intent. I find this devastating as a woman. So he was just hitting her on the head with a hammer, and he had all those weapons in his pants just because.... He intended to "harm" but not kill them... And then drive them home safe! This is ludicrous.

Yep. Ludicrous alright. As someone said earlier, was the jury on happy gas or what?

Told Mr. Laserdisc when he arrived home that the Salt Creek Psycho escaped the attempted-murder charge and he didn't believe me. That's because the extremely strange media for some reason (all branches I saw) have flourished as headline, 'Salt Creek Attacker Found Guilty'

Had to explain to Mr. Laserdisc that headline was deliberately misleading, imo, and why

Seems South Oz jurors might have found Salt Creek Psycho guilty of attempted murder IF the victims had died -- but there's no guarantee they would have found him guilty even then

South Australia's 'establishment' needs to catch up. It's not 1950 or 1850 any more. What happens in South Australia no longer stays in South Australia. We have internet now. People know about SA and have done for a long time. The reputation of that place stinks and it's bringing Australia down. It needs a good exorcism. But they're so arrogant and slow to learn, as this latest example of suppression and hanky panky illustrates

I don't believe they found less than 100 incriminating items on his computer
I don't believe jurors elsewhere in the world would have reached the same conclusion as the South Oz jurors in this case
And I'm disgusted

 

[aequitas]

Yep. Ludicrous alright. As someone said earlier, was the jury on happy gas or what?

Told Mr. Laserdisc when he arrived home that the Salt Creek Psycho escaped the attempted-murder charge and he didn't believe me. That's because the extremely strange media for some reason (all branches I saw) have flourished as headline, 'Salt Creek Attacker Found Guilty'

Had to explain to Mr. Laserdisc that headline was deliberately misleading, imo, and why

Seems South Oz jurors might have found Salt Creek Psycho guilty of attempted murder IF the victims had died -- but there's no guarantee they would have found him guilty even then

South Australia's 'establishment' needs to catch up. It's not 1950 or 1850 any more. What happens in South Australia no longer stays in South Australia. We have internet now. People know about SA and have done for a long time. The reputation of that place stinks and it's bringing Australia down. It needs a good exorcism. But they're so arrogant and slow to learn, as this latest example of suppression and hanky panky illustrates

I don't believe they found less than 100 incriminating items on his computer
I don't believe jurors elsewhere in the world would have reached the same conclusion as the South Oz jurors in this case
And I'm disgusted

this is the reason why all of the suppression in this case CONCERNS me. As a member of the public and a woman, this case concerns me. The decision reached here is warped. So warped. Perhaps the jury was given instructions by the judge that made them feel they couldn't take into account ceratin evidence. This all defies logic!!!!

 

[they'll get you]

This decision is disturbing.

What message of Australia will the world receive.

Ivan Millat- Peter Falconio the rest escapes me ATM.

This will effect our touristism, not only international backpackers but even our gray nomads.

The human race have short memories, they won't remember Millat got life but they will remember that Australia are soft c*cks when it comes overseas backpackers.

 

[MsAnais]

This sounds awful, but I don't actually place alot of faith in juries.....I've followed loads of cases that to me seem cut and dry and then the jury makes what I perceive to be an outrageous decision. Gable Tostee, anyone??!!:facepalm:

One of the units I did at uni was called Psychology and the Law....and whilst most of it is now a blur....I always remember the lecturer explaining to us that no psychologist in Australia can sit on a jury as they're perceived to have too much insight. The whole thrust was toward finding people who lacked independent, overly incisive thinking......(apologies if I'm insulting anyone who's done jury duty - it's a generalisation, I know, but one that I've seen borne out again and again by really questionable jury decisions).

 

[DRT]

One thing I was always told by my grandfather (who worked in the courts) was that you can't judge a court case unless you are there. The jurors are given instructions to follow with regard to the law that we as the public don't had to follow when making the decision. IMO a hammer as a weapon probably isn't the first choice someone would use for murder, which could possibly create some doubt as to intent, although it may have been the only implement at hand.

The other thing that I was not sure of if the jury agreed on 6 of the 7 charges but did not have consensus on the 7th charge would that mean that there would be another trial as a result of a hung jury or would it mean that only the 7th charge would be re-heard. If it is the case that the jury had to agree on all the charges as a member of the jury I may not want the risk of this man being acquitted by a subsequent jury. I don't know what the rule is here. If someone is able to clarify it would be appreciated.

 

[they'll get you]

This sounds awful, but I don't actually place alot of faith in juries.....I've followed loads of cases that to me seem cut and dry and then the jury makes what I perceive to be an outrageous decision. Gable Tostee, anyone??!!:facepalm:

One of the units I did at uni was called Psychology and the Law....and whilst most of it is now a blur....I always remember the lecturer explaining to us that no psychologist in Australia can sit on a jury as they're perceived to have too much insight. The whole thrust was toward finding people who lacked independent, overly incisive thinking......(apologies if I'm insulting anyone who's done jury duty - it's a generalisation, I know, but one that I've seen borne out again and again by really questionable jury decisions).

Thanks MsAnais, I've always respected your professional thoughts & always regard your knowledge as gold here.

Say if there is a murder and the victim is mutilated.
If there is a butcher or slaughterman in the jury he would react differently to a little housewife who has lead a sheltered life and has never tuned into the likes Websleuths.

 

[they'll get you]

Yep. Ludicrous alright. As someone said earlier, was the jury on happy gas or what?

Told Mr. Laserdisc when he arrived home that the Salt Creek Psycho escaped the attempted-murder charge and he didn't believe me. That's because the extremely strange media for some reason (all branches I saw) have flourished as headline, 'Salt Creek Attacker Found Guilty'

Had to explain to Mr. Laserdisc that headline was deliberately misleading, imo, and why

Seems South Oz jurors might have found Salt Creek Psycho guilty of attempted murder IF the victims had died -- but there's no guarantee they would have found him guilty even then

South Australia's 'establishment' needs to catch up. It's not 1950 or 1850 any more. What happens in South Australia no longer stays in South Australia. We have internet now. People know about SA and have done for a long time. The reputation of that place stinks and it's bringing Australia down. It needs a good exorcism. But they're so arrogant and slow to learn, as this latest example of suppression and hanky panky illustrates

I don't believe they found less than 100 incriminating items on his computer
I don't believe jurors elsewhere in the world would have reached the same conclusion as the South Oz jurors in this case
And I'm disgusted

Bloody good post this!
I read it, I absorbed it & I loved it.

 

[SouthAussie]

South Australia's 'establishment' needs to catch up. It's not 1950 or 1850 any more. What happens in South Australia no longer stays in South Australia. We have internet now. People know about SA and have done for a long time. The reputation of that place stinks and it's bringing Australia down. It needs a good exorcism. But they're so arrogant and slow to learn, as this latest example of suppression and hanky panky illustrates

I don't believe they found less than 100 incriminating items on his computer
I don't believe jurors elsewhere in the world would have reached the same conclusion as the South Oz jurors in this case
And I'm disgusted

Ouch!

Bloody good post this!
I read it, I absorbed it & I loved it.

Double ouch!!

One thing I was always told by my grandfather (who worked in the courts) was that you can't judge a court case unless you are there. The jurors are given instructions to follow with regard to the law that we as the public don't had to follow when making the decision. IMO a hammer as a weapon probably isn't the first choice someone would use for murder, which could possibly create some doubt as to intent, although it may have been the only implement at hand.

The other thing that I was not sure of if the jury agreed on 6 of the 7 charges but did not have consensus on the 7th charge would that mean that there would be another trial as a result of a hung jury or would it mean that only the 7th charge would be re-heard. If it is the case that the jury had to agree on all the charges as a member of the jury I may not want the risk of this man being acquitted by a subsequent jury. I don't know what the rule is here. If someone is able to clarify it would be appreciated.

Thank you.

This sounds awful, but I don't actually place alot of faith in juries.....I've followed loads of cases that to me seem cut and dry and then the jury makes what I perceive to be an outrageous decision. Gable Tostee, anyone??!!:facepalm:

One of the units I did at uni was called Psychology and the Law....and whilst most of it is now a blur....I always remember the lecturer explaining to us that no psychologist in Australia can sit on a jury as they're perceived to have too much insight. The whole thrust was toward finding people who lacked independent, overly incisive thinking......(apologies if I'm insulting anyone who's done jury duty - it's a generalisation, I know, but one that I've seen borne out again and again by really questionable jury decisions).

BBM (and many others in other states ... however we did not slag off those entire states for what is perceived as a poor decision)

Thank you, too.

.

 

[aequitas]

One thing I was always told by my grandfather (who worked in the courts) was that you can't judge a court case unless you are there. The jurors are given instructions to follow with regard to the law that we as the public don't had to follow when making the decision. IMO a hammer as a weapon probably isn't the first choice someone would use for murder, which could possibly create some doubt as to intent, although it may have been the only implement at hand.

The other thing that I was not sure of if the jury agreed on 6 of the 7 charges but did not have consensus on the 7th charge would that mean that there would be another trial as a result of a hung jury or would it mean that only the 7th charge would be re-heard. If it is the case that the jury had to agree on all the charges as a member of the jury I may not want the risk of this man being acquitted by a subsequent jury. I don't know what the rule is here. If someone is able to clarify it would be appreciated.

I just wanted to comment that blunt force trauma is not an uncommon cause of death in sex-related homicide. The fact he had both a knife and hammer as part of his rape kit is quite interesting. Earlier in this thread I had links to two unsolved murders that featured both blunt force trauma aka bludgeoning and stabbing. According to the Brazilian he both a hammer and a knife in his pants when he escorted her into the dunes.

 

[JudgeJudi]

How long until sentencing takes place. His name is still suppressed so there is obviously a hell of a lot more to this case.

After conviction there is a period of 28 days in which either side can lodge a notice of appeal.

The same applies after sentencing.

 

[JudgeJudi]

this is the reason why all of the suppression in this case CONCERNS me. As a member of the public and a woman, this case concerns me. The decision reached here is warped. So warped. Perhaps the jury was given instructions by the judge that made them feel they couldn't take into account ceratin evidence. This all defies logic!!!!

It is the duty of the jury to decide the facts based on the evidence presented during the trial. It is the duty of the judge to explain the law.

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM

German backpacker victim in the Salt Creek sex predator case expresses relief after verdict

“She wants everyone to know that the people of Salt Creek are amazing; and, (that) she was, and remains, overwhelmed by their humanity,” her statement read.
She thanked the locals who rescued her, police who helped her “attain justice” and Flinders Medical Centre doctors and nurses “who took care of her”.

The kidnapper, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was acquitted, however, of attempting to murder the German girl at the Coorong National Park, near Salt Creek, 210km south east of Adelaide.

Legal sources told the Sunday Mail that proving such a charge was among the most difficult objectives in the criminal justice system.

The convicted man faces at least 25 years in jail and Justice Trish Kelly will sentence the man later.

Mr O’Connell’s office will fund the victim’s return to Adelaide later this year to read victim impact statements to the court.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...t/news-story/48eb38c2363dd764b2e7be81662a78e8

 

[JudgeJudi]

One thing I was always told by my grandfather (who worked in the courts) was that you can't judge a court case unless you are there. The jurors are given instructions to follow with regard to the law that we as the public don't had to follow when making the decision. IMO a hammer as a weapon probably isn't the first choice someone would use for murder, which could possibly create some doubt as to intent, although it may have been the only implement at hand.

The other thing that I was not sure of if the jury agreed on 6 of the 7 charges but did not have consensus on the 7th charge would that mean that there would be another trial as a result of a hung jury or would it mean that only the 7th charge would be re-heard. If it is the case that the jury had to agree on all the charges as a member of the jury I may not want the risk of this man being acquitted by a subsequent jury. I don't know what the rule is here. If someone is able to clarify it would be appreciated.

Each charge is treated separately and is decided by a majority decision on each individual charge. Similarly, appeals can be lodged against any individual charge.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I just wanted to comment that blunt force trauma is not an uncommon cause of death in sex-related homicide. The fact he had both a knife and hammer as part of his rape kit is quite interesting. Earlier in this thread I had links to two unsolved murders that featured both blunt force trauma aka bludgeoning and stabbing. According to the Brazilian he both a hammer and a knife in his pants when he escorted her into the dunes.

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