Join the club! (literallyIf I’m ever under surveillance for a crime I am all kinds of stuffed
Webslewths has me googling all sorts of questionable things!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Join the club! (literallyIf I’m ever under surveillance for a crime I am all kinds of stuffed
Webslewths has me googling all sorts of questionable things!
It was not a hit and run because a body was not left behind, but yes, if the driver was 'reckless' that would be a murder charge.This is interesting.
I know LE have stated this was not a hit and run. I questioned this theory awhile back on if the accused decided to drive under the influence, hit SM and then hid her body instead of calling authorities - would that be enough grounds for a murder charge instead of manslaughter?
Also when you think about it, a hit and run would result in less evidence than a perp handling the body, placing the victim in their car and transferring DNA everywhere.
Oh hell yes !!I really don't see what his father's achievements have to do with Sam's alleged murder IMHO
I believe he *knows* he cannot say anything. *Anything* will incriminate. That is his only trump card. ...silence.I may be clutching at straws here, but with little info to go on, here are a few free floating associations …. Given the speed of the police notification and initial search for Samantha, the accused did not have long to collect and dispose of the body. Perhaps he exited the location first, and took his time to later dispose of the body? Of course the longer he took to do so, the greater the risk of being found with the body… The fact that the body has still not been found, in spite of rigorous searching for 5 weeks now, suggests to me a more methodical, calculated process rather than a panicked and disorganised effort? (Though I’m no expert). I may be completely wrong but as I think this through I sense a conspicuous absence of emotion, as well as some magical thinking, in this hypothetical scenario…. There is almost a quality of “now you see it, now you don’t…”. Aka., if the body “disappears” nothing actually happened… possibly an underlying lack of object constancy as seen in an infant/young child? I wonder if the accused’s silence reflects a similar sleight of mind? Aka., “if I don’t admit it, nothing happened?” All completely hypothetical, JMO…
My impression was that they were hitting him with the most severe offence, so that they could negotiate (eg if he reveals the location of the body) then they can potentially downgrade the charge. I don't know for sure, but I'm certain I've seen this happen before.
It was not a hit and run because a body was not left behind, but yes, if the driver was 'reckless' that would be a murder charge.
Do we know this as fact...(onto him within 2 weeks)???LE were onto him within two weeks of SM disappearance, did the fires occur within that two week time frame or after ?
I feel somewhat the same way as taken from the link I posted, the standard sentence for culpable driving is 8 years, although there could be further charges added.I was thinking if it was an initial accident wouldn’t the accused admit that now? It’s all out there. His entire family are now in the public eye.
What could staying silent in this matter of occurrence achieve?
Surely if it was an accident and cover up there is still some form of coming back from that. Maybe not much but there would be more understanding to a degree. I just can’t see someone that committed an initial accident (regardless of what happened post that) not revealing that or offering a kind of cooperation with LE?? MOO
Read this over the weekend, others may find useful
Reckless would fall under Involuntary ManslaughterIt was not a hit and run because a body was not left behind, but yes, if the driver was 'reckless' that would be a murder
I disagree, the below is the third arm under which a murder charge can be laid. see my previous post for link:Reckless would fall under Involuntary Manslaughter
no intention to kill see below:Exactly.
LE also stated it was a deliberate attack though, that's the part that gets me.
Driving under the influence is reckless. Could deliberately allowing someone to die instead of seeking medical help for them be considered intent to kill?
This is the requirement for murder in NSW (not Australian, so please correct me if I am wrong).
In NSW, Section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 defines murder and manslaughter. It involves a voluntary act by someone that causes a death of a person where there was an:
Underlining mine.
- Intent to kill: This requires establishing the defendant deliberately planned and executed the killing; or
- Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm; or
- Reckless indifference to human life: This involves demonstrating that the defendant’s actions disregarded the potential for causing death, even without a specific intention to kill.
Source Degrees of Murder in Australia | JB Solicitors
IMO, if the D was (as alledged) involved in drinking and drug taking in the early hours of Sunday - this would fall under the third of the above. D was 'reckless' because D chose to drive whilst under the influence (and this is also an illegal act). IMO, This also negates 'accident' under the eyes of the law because of the 'reckless' element.
im thinking they must have video footage showing her death or a witness has come forward, otherwise how can they be so adament, plus stating her death was deliberateThe police have been very tight lipped, as they should be, about most aspects of the information/evidence against the accused - but the one thing the have stated VERY clearly is that this was NOT a hit and run. So we can take that off the table.
Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but it just keeps coming up in my thoughts - the accused has been charged with Murder, yet SM's body has not been located as yet, so am I correct in thinking there must be some direct irrefutable evidence that shows that she is deceased? I know they can prosecute without a body, but unless there was proof that SM was no longer alive would they not be charging him with a lesser offence?
I suspect we will have to remind ourselves and continue to reference this "reckless indifference to human life", quite often.no intention to kill see below:
- Reckless indifference to human life: This involves demonstrating that the defendant’s actions disregarded the potential for causing death, even without a specific intention to kill.
If you find anything, I am sure they will be misquoted statements. I have never heard the investigators on the case say anything to this effect.Do we know this as fact...(onto him within 2 weeks)???
As I have mentioned a few times, I struggle with JUST HOW LONG, LE seemed to know or found NOTHING. Im going to try to go back to find those LE statements of knowing nothing.... but if anyone has one of the msm articles handy.... please share
This is the requirement for murder in NSW (not Australian, so please correct me if I am wrong).
In NSW, Section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 defines murder and manslaughter. It involves a voluntary act by someone that causes a death of a person where there was an:
Underlining mine.
- Intent to kill: This requires establishing the defendant deliberately planned and executed the killing; or
- Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm; or
- Reckless indifference to human life: This involves demonstrating that the defendant’s actions disregarded the potential for causing death, even without a specific intention to kill.
Source Degrees of Murder in Australia | JB Solicitors
IMO, if the D was (as alledged) involved in drinking and drug taking in the early hours of Sunday - this would fall under the third of the above. D was 'reckless' because D chose to drive whilst under the influence (and this is also an illegal act). IMO, This also negates 'accident' under the eyes of the law because of the 'reckless' element.
no intention to kill see below:
- Reckless indifference to human life: This involves demonstrating that the defendant’s actions disregarded the potential for causing death, even without a specific intention to kill.
From what I understand, manslaughter is when someone dies, but the perp didn't mean to kill them. It wasn't their intention, but maybe the intent was to injure them.Moo.. if it did start as a verbal argument between the two and he got out of his auto and became physically aggressive and this caused her death. Would that be seen as deliberate and therefore murder?