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

[DRT]

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.

Responding to ads via gumtree is not a crime, so from a jury's perspective it is not relevant, otherwise we would have a lot more people facing charges. Before everyone starts disputing this, I am not denying what his intentions were. Even the defence admitted in the closing he was "hated, creepy and sleezy".

 

[anna.w]

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!!

I agree that the Morcombes rock, as do the police who carried that sting off so well. The problem with having a criminal record in front of the jury and allowing them to reason on the basis of past behaviour is that if Douglas Jackaway had been charged, he may have been convicted. Most of the numbered POIs at that inquest were child rapists. It's true that the best predictor of future violence is past violence, and someone with a relevant history is probably more likely to be guilty than someone without that relevant history. But it doesn't make them more likely to be guilty of that particular offence than someone else with a similar record, and it doesn't mean they've committed every offence of that type.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tlorik]

Of course it's not a crime to respond to an ad. Neither is responding to Craigslist, Kik, or any of the other half dozen dating and meeting sites available on the web right now. But it's also made it incredibly easy for predators and con men to basically "shop" for their next victim. I am not in any way criticizing the jury or judicial system, and don't want to be argumentative. Imo.

Sent from my P01M using Tapatalk

 

[they'll get you]

Of course it's not a crime to respond to an ad. Neither is responding to Craigslist, Kik, or any of the other half dozen dating and meeting sites available on the web right now. But it's also made it incredibly easy for predators and con men to basically "shop" for their next victim. I am not in any way criticizing the jury or judicial system, and don't want to be argumentative. Imo.

Sent from my P01M using Tapatalk

I really appreciate the info about RL, I didn't know. They have him smelling like roses.
I didn't see any other neighbours yapping to the cameras. I've seen perps taking every opportunity to get in front of the cameras to show how looovely they really are, it's like they are getting a gang together or selling themselves. Usually narcissistic personalities will do that well.
Just again my hinky meter was hitting the red zone.

 

[Jo04]

O/T if anyone on this thread was dealing with TC Debbie. Hope you are well and not much damage done. She was fierce but the qld spirit is fiercest.


Sent from my ZTE Blade L5 using Tapatalk

 

[richieswan]

".... 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."

"....."

Snipped by me to shorten

BBM: "The four-wheel drive allegations were not part of the attempted murder charge - they were charged separately as endangering life."

Oh dear, is that how the charges were segmented? Surely the second attack only occurred because the previous attack failed to kill. What would have happened if the girls weren't rescued? Hugs?

 

[JudgeJudi]

Today Tonight interviews with the heroes. I'm so glad we get to see these wonderful guys.

[video=youtube;3qKikx_IG2k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qKikx_IG2k&app=desktop[/video]

 

[they'll get you]

O/T if anyone on this thread was dealing with TC Debbie. Hope you are well and not much damage done. She was fierce but the qld spirit is fiercest.


Sent from my ZTE Blade L5 using Tapatalk

How to gauge cyclones!

 

[SouthAussie]

Snipped by me to shorten

BBM: "The four-wheel drive allegations were not part of the attempted murder charge - they were charged separately as endangering life."

Oh dear, is that how the charges were segmented? Surely the second attack only occurred because the previous attack failed to kill. What would have happened if the girls weren't rescued? Hugs?

I know, there is a lot of talk about the separation of those charges. If they kept them together would he have avoided the endangering life conviction, and would still have been found not guilty of attempted murder ... and therefore avoided a longer sentence? (As the intent element is apparently the hardest to prove.) Or would it have bolstered the attempted murder charge so he may have been found guilty of that?

I imagine the prosecution spent a lot of time dwelling on how to frame these charges to maximise this creep's jail time and get as many guilty verdicts as they possibly could.

 

[MsAnais]

So am I right in assuming he has no prior criminal record since we haven't heard about it in MSM?

Usually after they're found guilty the media releases their past crimes. We've only heard about his creepy stalking behaviours but no actual criminal record.

Or is that too being suppressed? I'm not sure how this whole 'suppression of information' thing works......:thinking:

 

[SouthAussie]

So am I right in assuming he has no prior criminal record since we haven't heard about it in MSM?

Usually after they're found guilty the media releases their past crimes. We've only heard about his creepy stalking behaviours but no actual criminal record.

Or is that too being suppressed? I'm not sure how this whole 'suppression of information' thing works......:thinking:

I've been wondering if the suppression is due to some other court case coming up for him.

I can't think of any other reason why the suppression would be in place.

And if that is the case :dunno: then there could be priors, but sub judice would also be in play. The journos seem to know why there is this suppression (and maybe sub judice).

 

[JudgeJudi]

So am I right in assuming he has no prior criminal record since we haven't heard about it in MSM?

Usually after they're found guilty the media releases their past crimes. We've only heard about his creepy stalking behaviours but no actual criminal record.

Or is that too being suppressed? I'm not sure how this whole 'suppression of information' thing works......:thinking:

"His name will remain suppressed at least until committal proceedings are finalised but I don't think its appropriate to detail this person's criminal history," Acting Asst Commissioner Barr added”.

So obviously he has prior form of some sort.

“7 News revealed yesterday that the suspect was already in police sights as detectives had already raided his southern suburbs home several times in the past year seizing items of interest”.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sa/a/3078...national-park-in-south-australian-bush/#page1

My belief is that the police didn’t want anything else to be publicised re RH because of ongoing investigations, and that includes his name. The more information publicised, the more it may taint future prosecutions.

RH has now been convicted of the aggravated offence of causing serious harm with intent and aggravated kidnapping each of which carries a sentence of 25 years. According to NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, the average term of a life sentence is 25 years.

Further sleuthing has revealed:

“Where a defendant is found guilty of a number of offences for which they were charged on one or a number of Complaints or Informations, section 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) empowers the Court to impose one penalty for all or some of the offences. However this does not apply to some offences prescribed designated offences, which include: -

…
causing harm and causing serious harm;
kidnapping;

It would appear then that RH will be sentenced to more than 25 years.

[url]http://www.lsc.sa.gov.au/dsh/print/ch10.php#Ch1252Se240371[/URL]

[I’ve taken this as far as I can so I’ll wait for the judge’s sentence. I’ll either open a bottle of fine wine or have a tantrum.]

 

[MsAnais]

"His name will remain suppressed at least until committal proceedings are finalised but I don't think its appropriate to detail this person's criminal history," Acting Asst Commissioner Barr added”.

So obviously he has prior form of some sort.

“7 News revealed yesterday that the suspect was already in police sights as detectives had already raided his southern suburbs home several times in the past year seizing items of interest”.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sa/a/3078...national-park-in-south-australian-bush/#page1

My belief is that the police didn’t want anything else to be publicised re RH because of ongoing investigations, and that includes his name. The more information publicised, the more it may taint future prosecutions.

RH has now been convicted of the aggravated offence of causing serious harm with intent and aggravated kidnapping each of which carries a sentence of 25 years. According to NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, the average term of a life sentence is 25 years.

Further sleuthing has revealed:

“Where a defendant is found guilty of a number of offences for which they were charged on one or a number of Complaints or Informations, section 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) empowers the Court to impose one penalty for all or some of the offences.

…
causing harm and causing serious harm;
kidnapping;

It would appear then that RH will be sentenced to more than 25 years.

[url]http://www.lsc.sa.gov.au/dsh/print/ch10.php#Ch1252Se240371[/URL]

[I’ve taken this as far as I can so I’ll wait for the judge’s sentence. I’ll either open a bottle of fine wine or have a tantrum.]

BBM

Ah, thank you so much JJ. That statement certainly implies he has a criminal record.

 

[aequitas]

No, I am guessing his name is being suppressed because there are more serious crimes for which he has been charged, potentially in another jurisdiction. He won't get a fair trial if a jury is aware of his SAlt creek activities. If it is in the same jurisdiction then I understand the least serious offences are dealt with first. I recall he was before court not long after his arrest for outstanding traffic offences where he drove into a tree while intoxicated. We also know he was on Sapol's radar before salt creek happened.

 

[SouthAussie]

Well, we know that a pretty extensive list of girls has been compiled by the police/prosecution, about previous incidents where he had offered to take other backpackers to various places they wanted to go - so I imagine police have been onto him for a while (maybe since Nov 2015, a French woman then a German woman who wanted to travel the Great Ocean Road) and gathered lots of related information.

Perhaps there is a rape/attempted rape case(s) pending, that has not yet been mentioned as it is waiting to happen.

Defence counsel Bill Boucaut SC objected to jurors being presented any of the evidence, saying it carried “a prejudicial punch”.
“It suggests that he’s got this very unhealthy sexual interest in backpackers,” he said.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...d/news-story/e678e0db771c3931132df139f6285b73

A bit like Adrian Bayley. He was arrested and convicted for the rape and murder of Jill Meagher, but he had previous rape convictions, and then further rape cases to attend after he was in jail for Jill's murder.

None of those other cases were mentioned while he was on trial for Jill's murder. They were just horrible facts that were revealed later.

 

[SouthAussie]

And how about the Japanese backpacker. She did not get into strife with him, because she told him that she had let people know exactly where she was, and she had included photos of him ... so he took her back to Adelaide, instead of on to Melbourne ... which he probably hadn't intended to do anyway. imo

But he wouldn't leave her alone afterwards. Was quite pesky as far as MSM reports go. Would he be facing stalking/harassment charges for continuing to bother her on an ongoing basis?
And where did all of these girls stay? In a backpackers hostel? Does that hostel (if that is the case) know a lot more about him, and perhaps crimes he has committed against people staying there?


BBM

He said that, after they returned from Salt Creek, the man became “obsessed” with the Japanese backpacker.
“(His subsequent behaviour) indicates a very unusual and deep-seated interest in her and her whereabouts,” he said.

“(He was) fascinated by her, he must have been, given his interest in her after the trip — which does call into question whether it was just a friendly trip down to the coast.
“He had a specific interest in (her), that interest involved him taking her to Salt Creek.”

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...d/news-story/e678e0db771c3931132df139f6285b73

 

[DRT]

So am I right in assuming he has no prior criminal record since we haven't heard about it in MSM?

Usually after they're found guilty the media releases their past crimes. We've only heard about his creepy stalking behaviours but no actual criminal record.

Or is that too being suppressed? I'm not sure how this whole 'suppression of information' thing works......:thinking:

What I don't understand is if previous convictions were also suppressed if they were of a serious nature surely you would find them via our friend google using his full name. I don't believe there is any convictions worth being reported in MSM. You can search his name for the current case, so why wouldn't there be any leaks on previous convictions. In agreeance with previous comments about previous uncharged crimes that may be in the woodworks.

 

[aequitas]

And how about the Japanese backpacker. She did not get into strife with him, because she told him that she had let people know exactly where she was, and she had included photos of him ... so he took her back to Adelaide, instead of on to Melbourne ... which he probably hadn't intended to do anyway. imo

But he wouldn't leave her alone afterwards. Was quite pesky as far as MSM reports go. Would he be facing stalking/harassment charges for continuing to bother her on an ongoing basis?
And where did all of these girls stay? In a backpackers hostel? Does that hostel (if that is the case) know a lot more about him, and perhaps crimes he has committed against people staying there?


BBM

i got the impression the stalking was online via Facebook. He no doubt had her mobile also.

 

[SouthAussie]

i got the impression the stalking was online via Facebook. He no doubt had her mobile also.

Yes, you are right. Thanks for that. It is mentioned that he stalked the Japanese tourist on FB, in this Australian article that I hadn't read before. A great write-up.

It also mentions how the German backpacker got back into his car with him, after her ordeal and after she had made him throw his weapons into the bush. And I wonder if that is one of the reasons he was found not guilty of intent to kill ... because she got back into his car with him, willingly, and he tried to tend her wounds..

What unfolds next reads like something out of a low-budget slasher flick. He smashes the German girl in the head with a carpenter’s hammer. He rams her repeatedly with the bullbar of his 4WD, sending her flying into the scrub.

He runs over her in the sand, the hulking chassis straddling her body. It is the sand that saves her; in his crazed pursuit of her, his Nissan engine whines but the wheels spin in the soft terrain.

It is then that she leaps onto the bonnet, onto the roof, clinging to the roof rack and her life as the vehicle roars through the bush in impotent rage.

In the end, she defeats him. Faint from loss of blood, she outlasts him. She refuses to come down from the roof until he has thrown his weapons into the scrub.

Finally, she agrees to get back in the car. He offers to clean her wound. He offers her a Panadol.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...k/news-story/f9328be56e6d1a731c75d4c5fe55a6ed

 

[SouthAussie]

What amazing tenacity the German girl has!! Good for her.

After the ordeal and she had received medical treatment etc, she continued her backpacking tour around Australia. Went to Melbourne, worked on a potato farm, ride-shared up the east coast to Qld, then returned to Germany to start her Uni studies.
And she'd like to return and live in Adelaide one day.


What happened to two women on a remote Australian beach is every backpacker's worst nightmare.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...k/news-story/f9328be56e6d1a731c75d4c5fe55a6ed