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

[SouthAussie]

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

As well, a knife and a hammer are typical camping tools .... not just items found in a 'rape kit', or an 'intent to kill kit'.

A knife for many purposes, cutting of campfire tinder, cutting of many things - a hammer for hammering in the tent pegs.

The jury may have been swaying heavily with the intent to kill element. Was the intent to kill there? Or was the intent to stop her from running there? Such indecision can cause this kind of verdict.

.

 

[SouthAussie]

And now comes the Sunday night viewing.


It is understood there is a bidding war between rival TV current affairs programs for an interview with the victims.

The German is understood to have agreed to a six-figure paid interview with the Nine Network’s 60 Minutes program, which sent a producer down to the trial.

A similar amount is believed to have been offered by the rival Seven Network Sunday Night program.

It is understood the Brazilian is also considering selling her story.

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

 

[JudgeJudi]

Looking at the Criminal Law Consolidation Act for South Australia, these would appear to be the relevant sentences:

Aggravated kidnapping – 18 years

Indecent assault - 8 years

Causing harm with intent to cause harm – 10 years

Aggravated attempt causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm – aggravated offence 25 years

Endangering life – 15 years

Aggravated assault – the maximum penalty 3 years imprisonment, unless you commit the assault with the use of a weapon, in which case it is 4 years. These penalties are extended to 4 and 5 years respectively if you cause actual harm to the person.

I believe that if he's sentenced to 25 years (or less) on the aggravated attempt causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm, the other sentences will probably be served concurrently, not consecutively.

Don't hold me to this because I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's fairly accurate. It's a matter for the judge to decide and she may choose to give him less. 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 after 20 years, but that's not to say he'd get it.

As for me, I'd like to see him in prison for at least 20 years, preferably 25. That would make him 80 or 85 when he gets out, and I'd be extremely happy with that.

 

[MsAnais]

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.

BBM

I agree Aequitas. The Yorkshire Ripper used those weapons. He used the hammer to incapacitate his victims and then a knife (or sometimes a sharpened screwdriver) to kill them via stabbing.

I also understand why people are saying that the hammer and knife could just be considered normal camping equipment. And why a jury may be convinced of that.

But personally I think it was indeed his rape/murder kit. JMO though, obviously.

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM

I agree Aequitas. The Yorkshire Ripper used those weapons. He used the hammer to incapacitate his victims and then a knife (or sometimes a sharpened screwdriver) to kill them via stabbing.

I also understand why people are saying that the hammer and knife could just be considered normal camping equipment. And why a jury may be convinced of that.

But personally I think it was indeed his rape/murder kit. JMO though, obviously.

I think it would be hard to prove that they weren't typical camping equipment and were solely for nefarious purposes - I guess that is what I was trying to say, with regard to the jury's possible indecision with that verdict and 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.

 

[MsAnais]

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.

Thank you TGY :blowkiss:

Lovely to be on thread with you again!!

(and just call me Anais....I've only got the Ms there as 'Anais' was already taken)

 

[MsAnais]

I think it would be hard to prove that they weren't typical camping equipment and were solely for nefarious purposes - I guess that is what I was trying to say, with regard to the jury's possible indecision with that verdict and 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Yes, I got that from your post SouthAussie :seeya:. And I agree with what you're saying about that regarding the jury. It makes sense.

I'm just saying that I personally think otherwise......but you know, I've read so many freaky serial killer books over the years, I'm outrageously suspicious. I doubt the average person who isn't into true crime would think in the same way. They may well see those things as innocent tools. And it is indeed very difficult to prove otherwise.

 

[Sutton]

Looking at the Criminal Law Consolidation Act for South Australia, these would appear to be the relevant sentences:

Aggravated kidnapping – 18 years

Indecent assault - 8 years

Causing harm with intent to cause harm – 10 years

Aggravated attempt causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm – aggravated offence 25 years

Endangering life – 15 years

Aggravated assault – the maximum penalty 3 years imprisonment, unless you commit the assault with the use of a weapon, in which case it is 4 years. These penalties are extended to 4 and 5 years respectively if you cause actual harm to the person...

RSBM. What's the relevant sentence for attempted murder?

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes, I got that from your post SouthAussie :seeya:. And I agree with what you're saying about that regarding the jury. It makes sense.

I'm just saying that I personally think otherwise......but you know, I've read so many freaky serial killer books over the years, I'm outrageously suspicious. I doubt the average person who isn't into true crime would think in the same way. They may well see those things as innocent tools. And it is indeed very difficult to prove otherwise.

Well, you know and I know and others know, too, how hard it is to prove intent to kill. Otherwise, Gable Tostee, Gordon Wood, OJ Simpson and others would not have got off their murder charges.

 

[they'll get you]

Ouch!






Double ouch!!




Thank you.




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.

.

Im having problems with my Apple devices ATM. (Keeps reloading). I'm sorry SA I replied to wrong post.

 

[SouthAussie]

Im having problems with my Apple devices ATM. (Keeps reloading). I'm sorry SA I replied to wrong post.

That's okay,tgy. I know about your Apple/cutting-board-for-broccoli/frisby-for-the-dog device issues.

Just a little surprised at the vehemence in that post! As if SA is the only state that ever 'got it wrong', and is a disgrace to the whole of Australia! Good thing we were voted in the top 5 places in the world to visit in 2017 by Lonely Planet (the only Aussie state to make the list :giggle: )

 

[SouthAussie]

RSBM. What's the relevant sentence for attempted murder?

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

 

[DRT]

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.

I saw your posts earlier and agree they are possibilities. All I was doing was putting up alternatives as to why the jury might not convict someone. I think being on a jury would be one of the most difficult tasks out.

The defendant didn't seem to be the best planner, going to a "remote" beach site that wasn't so remote in the warm weather. The internet searches weren't "documented" as searching for ways to kill, only rape type searches. Maybe there is a reason for this.

I am sure if police believe there is some connection they will be questioning him and re-examining evidence.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I saw your posts earlier and agree they are possibilities. All I was doing was putting up alternatives as to why the jury might not convict someone. I think being on a jury would be one of the most difficult tasks out.

The defendant didn't seem to be the best planner, going to a "remote" beach site that wasn't so remote in the warm weather. The internet searches weren't "documented" as searching for ways to kill, only rape type searches. Maybe there is a reason for this.

I am sure if police believe there is some connection they will be questioning him and re-examining evidence.

If one or both of the women had died from injuries sustained in the attack, RH would have been found guilty of manslaughter?! It appears this is their mode of thinking which is totally bizarre. He wasn't defending himself from attack, he was assaulting and trying to kill them. He had free will to leave whenever he chose! If his intent before bringing them to that spot wasn't to kill, his intent after he assaulted the Brazilian, surely was. I don't get it. :thinking:

 

[BReVeTTe]

??? not attempted murder ???

if it IS really as simple as a hammer & knife being part of a regular camping kit — where the hell are they???
was anything else missing? ... i somehow doubt it.
_______________ _______________

"Plastic and reconstructive surgeon Doctor Andrew Raymond treated the German at Flinders Medical Centre the morning after an alleged attack on February 9, 2016.
He said, she had FOUR lacerations on her head consistent with the blunt force trauma caused by a hammer ... an area of the skull bone was exposed.
the largest laceration - 55mm in length - was jagged-edged, and went through ALL of layers of the scalp down to the bone on top of the head, which is among the hardest of bone in the skull ...
The man then later rammed her several times with his four-wheel drive."

more on this story: (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-20/alleged-salt-creek-victims-skull-bone-exposed/8370360)

• German backpacker's skull bone exposed in alleged Salt Creek hammer attack
• Alleged Salt Creek kidnapper used car to 'mow down' victim, court hears
• 'Blood everywhere': Salt Creek trial told of backpacker's state after alleged attack
• 'I can't trust you, you tried to kill me': Backpacker recounts alleged Salt Creek attack
• 'I'm not going to die today': Backpacker refused to give up during alleged Salt Creek attack
• Alleged Salt Creek attack victim looked like she'd 'seen the devil'
• Saliva DNA on backpacker's body matched to accused
Backpackers' Salt Creek ordeal not fabricated, SA court told
_______________ _______________

"Near the point of blacking out after four hammer blows to the head, the German was also lucky to survive being run down several times as she darted about the heavy sand in a frantic dash for survival"
"Fortunately, the women lived to tell their tale, thanks to a combination of a fierce will to survive and sheer luck that a group of fishermen was nearby and able to bring the ordeal to an end" >
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...s/news-story/9b91618bac9b784b68bc5258155b32ce
_______________ _______________

IMHO, it IS entirely possible the 95 bondage/*advertiser censored* related items on his devices WERE in fact the total of all to exist in his warm-up fantasy world ... however, might this then be a reflection on how much more of his actual time was engaged in the reality pursuit of such "adventure" ???
have we only heard from the "lucky" ones?


[emoji887]

 

[aequitas]

I saw your posts earlier and agree they are possibilities. All I was doing was putting up alternatives as to why the jury might not convict someone. I think being on a jury would be one of the most difficult tasks out.

The defendant didn't seem to be the best planner, going to a "remote" beach site that wasn't so remote in the warm weather. The internet searches weren't "documented" as searching for ways to kill, only rape type searches. Maybe there is a reason for this.

I am sure if police believe there is some connection they will be questioning him and re-examining evidence.

was he not the best planner or was he just cocky because he has done this many times before. What 60 yr old takes two girls at once at that age as a first sex and murder attack? I think he is calculating and brazen because he has done this many times before

 

[xmsmadex]

I think it would be hard to prove that they weren't typical camping equipment and were solely for nefarious purposes - I guess that is what I was trying to say, with regard to the jury's possible indecision with that verdict and 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Even if it were just a part of his camping gear that in no way means he didnt have intent to kill it just rules out premeditation. But once he began his attack and the possibility of them getting away occured he definitely had intent to kill.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[SouthAussie]

Even if it were just a part of his camping gear that in no way means he didnt have intent to kill it just rules out premeditation. But once he began his attack and the possibility of them getting away occured he definitely had intent to kill.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

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

 

[they'll get you]

was he not the best planner or was he just cocky because he has done this many times before. What 60 yr old takes two girls at once at that age as a first sex and murder attack? I think he is calculating and brazen because he has done this many times before

I agree. Maybe that's why his name is still suppressed because others have come forward. More hearings in the future.

I believe *advertiser censored* pickles the brain.

*advertiser censored* + drugs + worms in the brain = disaster.

(Worms in the brain = a mental case)

 

[they'll get you]

Was the first time he took two women and his usual plans were wrecked because he couldn't control two at once.

He's raped before and I'd wager the farm that a few didn't say anything because of fear and if they would be believed.