GUILTY Australia - Jill Meagher, 29, Melbourne, 22 Sep 2012 #5

[SisterWolf]

Pictures aren't working for me either

 

[Paulie11]

You can not accidentally strangle someone the way you suggested. One of the news reports linked here said that after they lose consciousness you have to apply pressure and keep hold for another 3 minutes to kill them.

Dr Matthew Lynch (the pathologist who testified) said Jill was strangled with sustained force.

Having his hands around her neck, crushing the life out of her for at least 3 minutes means it was not accidental at all. He intended to kill her. It doesn't matter if he planned it because planning is not a necessary prerequisite to the intent to murder. A few seconds is all it takes to change a killing from manslaughter to murder.

Maybe Bayley had a tight grip on the throat/neck for the duration of the rape as a means of keeping her quiet- the rape would have been longer than 3 minutes, I presume, so that would have been longer than is necessary to render one unconscious and deceased from choking. He can argue that during the rape he didn’t realise she had passed out; he can argue he was focused on the rape and didn’t realise he was applying undue pressure to the neck/throat which resulted in her death; and by the time the rape was finished, he saw that she wasn’t moving, he panicked, he apologised to her, tapped her on the face to wake her up, but she never awoke. Then he realised she was dead. This sounds possible.

What I think is pertinent here is for people to realise that there are two different points we must separate apart:
1) You can become unconscious from strangulation very quickly, perhaps within 10-20 seconds; or,
2) You can become deceased from strangulation, which, gathering from the pathologist’s comments, takes 3 minutes of continued denial of oxygen to the brain.
I think people are confusing these two possibilities. It is very easy to become unconscious due to denial of oxygen to the brain, and when the pressure is released, you regain consciousness within a matter of seconds, so pretty much instantly. Now, I am aware of:
1) Teenagers, youths, who play the ‘choking game’, which is where they ‘self choke’ to get a ‘high’ from the lack of oxygen to the brain. I was shocked when I first learned of this so called ‘game’, though- as bizarre as it sounds- it Is apparently more frequent than people know, and it has resulted in a non-negligible amount of deaths around the world. If you google it you will find cases of parents going into their teenagers bedroom only to find them deceased, and upon autopsy it is ruled it was via oxygen deprivation to the brain (choking)- the parents are shocked and in disbelief, and ask their friends about this, and the friends finally, sheepishly, admit they were all kind of playing the game and thought it was funny to one-up/out do each other at this ‘choking game’, kind of like seeing who can hold their breathe under water the longest.
2) There can be a sexual component to this, which heightens and/or prolongs the sensation of arousal or climax or something. Some adults have choking feitshes. Bayley might have been up to something like this. So he was not really trying to kill her, though he was just concentrating on getting a better sensation… if you catch my drift. What a TOOL! It’s absolutely despicable. ABSOLUTELY!!!!! So, technically, he wasn’t trying to murder her- thus denying the murder charge- though he was just getting more pleasure. This is just awful.

So when murder requires &#8216;intention&#8217; to perform the action of killing/murder- we can see how this scenario offered above is one which lacks the &#8216;intention&#8217; to kill. So technically he is not guilty of murder- only of negligence. So you can unintentionally strangle someone when your mind is elsewhere&#8230; So, basically, Jill died while Bayley was seeking greater pleasure. While he was playing his choking games, she was dying. This, quite probably, is what might have happened. You think this <modsnip> hasn&#8217;t enlisted his g/f to vouch on his behalf that &#8216;bayley is an avid choking game fetishist&#8217;? I&#8217;m sure he has, and I&#8217;m sure she told him to **** HIMSELF ROYALLY!!!!! So that&#8217;s why, if you&#8217;re on a jury, think very hard about these matters.

And I would also like to say that I ABSOLUTELY DETEST having to speak about these things which I consider totally immoral. If people want to get up to this ****, they can do it in the privacy of their bedrooms; this is not for public consumption. But to clarify matters around here, as best as I know, I&#8217;ve ventured in and told you all about this. Sorry to anyone who is offended by this stuff, and if anything was wrong, please correct it, for I am no expert on these things by any stretch. And I am completely <modsnip> at having to speak about this, which is also another reason why I COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY support the police releasing all information publicly- and GIVING US EXPLANATIONS SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW WTF IS GOING ON!!!!! Further, I am FURIOUS about this three rape charges business, without anyone clarifying that, to the best of my knowledge, it means anal, oral, vaginal, because we have people walking around society- I suspect most of them- thinking he raped her and ejaculated three times. So for those of you looking at me HARPING on about the public release of information, that is why I am doing it, to clear the details up and get things explained. This should be the work of police, not mine nor anyone else&#8217;s; it should be done by public officials.

 

[Paulie11]

sign on Hope street across rd from ally/lane[/I]

I actually took this one tonight, it looks new... kind of poignant

yes, extremely tragic. that's a result of jill's legacy right there.

 

[Scoobysnack]

Pictures don't work for me for some reason...beyond refreshing the page I'm stumped!

But the effort is greatly appreciated Scoob, hopefully I can figure it out

Oh that's a bummer!
I can see them on my pc, they are quite big .....maybe that could be why?
hope they aren't to big!

maybe try looking at them through "my album" ??? may work for you.

 

[SisterWolf]

Maybe Bayley had a tight grip on the throat/neck for the duration of the rape as a means of keeping her quiet- the rape would have been longer than 3 minutes, I presume, so that would have been longer than is necessary to render one unconscious and deceased from choking. He can argue that during the rape he didn&#8217;t realise she had passed out; he can argue he was focused on the rape and didn&#8217;t realise he was applying undue pressure to the neck/throat which resulted in her death; and by the time the rape was finished, he saw that she wasn&#8217;t moving, he panicked, he apologised to her, tapped her on the face to wake her up, but she never awoke. Then he realised she was dead. This sounds possible.

What I think is pertinent here is for people to realise that there are two different points we must separate apart:
1) You can become unconscious from strangulation very quickly, perhaps within 10-20 seconds; or,
2) You can become deceased from strangulation, which, gathering from the pathologist&#8217;s comments, takes 3 minutes of continued denial of oxygen to the brain.
I think people are confusing these two possibilities. It is very easy to become unconscious due to denial of oxygen to the brain, and when the pressure is released, you regain consciousness within a matter of seconds, so pretty much instantly. Now, I am aware of:
1) Teenagers, youths, who play the &#8216;choking game&#8217;, which is where they &#8216;self choke&#8217; to get a &#8216;high&#8217; from the lack of oxygen to the brain. I was shocked when I first learned of this so called &#8216;game&#8217;, though- as bizarre as it sounds- it Is apparently more frequent than people know, and it has resulted in a non-negligible amount of deaths in around the world. If you google it you will find cases of parents going into their teenagers bedroom only to find them deceased, and upon autopsy it is ruled it was via oxygen deprivation to the brain (choking)- the parents are shocked and in disbelief, and ask their friends about this, and the friends finally, sheepishly, admit they were all kind of playing the game and thought it was funny to one-up/out do each other at this &#8216;choking game&#8217;, kind of like seeing who can hold their breathe under water the longest.
2) There can be a sexual component to this, which heightens and/or prolongs the sensation of arousal or climax or something. Some adults have choking feitshes. Bayley might have been up to something like this. So he was not really trying to kill her, though he was just concentrating on getting a better sensation&#8230; if you catch my drift. What a TOOL! It&#8217;s absolutely despicable. ABSOLUTELY!!!!! So, technically, he wasn&#8217;t trying to murder her- thus denying the murder charge- though he was just getting more pleasure. This is just awful.

So when murder requires &#8216;intention&#8217; to perform the action of killing/murder- we can see how this scenario offered above is one which lacks the &#8216;intention&#8217; to kill. So technically he is not guilty of murder- only of negligence. So you can unintentionally strangle someone when your mind is elsewhere&#8230; So, basically, Jill died while Bayley was seeking greater pleasure. While he was playing his choking games, she was dying. This, quite probably, is what might have happened. You think this <modsnip> hasn&#8217;t enlisted his g/f to vouch on his behalf that &#8216;bayley is an avid choking game fetishist&#8217;? I&#8217;m sure he has, and I&#8217;m sure she told him to **** HIMSELF ROYALLY!!!!! So that&#8217;s why, if you&#8217;re on a jury, think very hard about these matters.

And I would also like to say that I ABSOLUTELY DETEST having to speak about these things which I consider totally immoral. If people want to get up to this ****, they can do it in the privacy of their bedrooms; this is not for public consumption. But to clarify matters around here, as best as I know, I&#8217;ve ventured in and told you all about this. Sorry to anyone who is offended by this stuff, and if anything was wrong, please correct it, for I am no expert on these things by any stretch. And I am completely <modsnip> at having to speak about this, which is also another reason why I COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY support the police releasing all information publicly- and GIVING US EXPLANATIONS SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW WTF IS GOING ON!!!!! Further, I am FURIOUS about this three rape charges business, without anyone clarifying that, to the best of my knowledge, it means anal, oral, vaginal, because we have people walking around society- I suspect most of them- thinking he raped her and ejaculated three times. So for those of you looking at me BANGING on about the public release of information, that is why I am doing it, to clear the details up and get things explained. This should be the work of police, not mine or anyone else&#8217;s; it should be done by public officials.

The reason I think this is highly unlikely Paulie is that in order for sexual arousal, he would be choking himself, not Jill. What purpose would choking Jill serve for HIS sexual arousal? Rape is about power and control.

Also, I don't think this argument could possibly convince a jury that he wasn't guilty of murder. He didn't intend to murder her but he strangles her with sustained force long enough to kill her. I can't remember the exact legal wording regarding the law of murder ( someone was kind enough to post it recently in a thread) but from memory, the fact that he knows that sustained strangulation with that amount of force would be likely to result in her death, is means enough to convict him of murder, regardless of whether he says he 'intended' to or not.

I don't think a jury can believe a word he says regarding the account of what happened or his feelings of remorse as he's already proven with the rehabilitation that he lied and told them what they wanted to hear just to get an early release.

I also think the 3 counts of rape happened as you said above (3 different types). If anyone read the infamous article by a certain magazine they will know that is indeed what likely occured based on his previous attacks, and if the details of his previous attacks are any indication of how depraved, sick and disgusting this ****** is, then I have no doubt that this is just as horrific and I'm not surprised journalists were physically ill and the details had to be suppressed.

 

[Angeline]

I too think Jill kept walking as she thought the coast was clear, but that he was hiding and possibly ambushed her. Terrifying stuff and it would be helpful for women at least to know this info so they can better protect themselves from this scenario.

Sister wolf - I agree with the post about psychopaths. Also, I did read the magazine and had thankfully pushed the details out of my mind, but it's coming back to me now

 

[SisterWolf]

Did anyone else notice that the first media release on the details released from the committal hearing (from memory it was a news update by the Herald Sun) DID actually state the graphic detail re the 3 rape charges? Then it was promptly removed and no MSM has printed it since.

 

[Scoobysnack]

Did anyone else notice that the first media release on the details released from the committal hearing (from memory it was a news update by the Herald Sun) DID actually state the graphic detail re the 3 rape charges? Then it was promptly removed and no MSM has printed it since.

no I did not hear or see this, awful

 

[inkpink]

Did anyone else notice that the first media release on the details released from the committal hearing (from memory it was a news update by the Herald Sun) DID actually state the graphic detail re the 3 rape charges? Then it was promptly removed and no MSM has printed it since.

Don't suppose you copied it?

 

[Paulie11]

SisterWolf:
The reason I think this is highly unlikely Paulie is that in order for sexual arousal, he would be choking himself, not Jill. What purpose would choking Jill serve for HIS sexual arousal? Rape is about power and control.
Maybe he was choking himself and her. Or, maybe he got off on choking others. I mentioned the case of teenagers to illustrate that one can get a high from choking. Though one can be sadistic and choke. That is different, and maybe that is what bayley exhibited. I personally don't think so- i just think he was keeping her quiet, but she died during the rape. It's as simple as that. Think about it, he is out in the open near buildings, his first precaution is to keep silent, nothing else. Choking someone is a surefire way to keep them from yelling- the more they scream, the more you choke. It's elementary. So he needed to keep from being noticed, so he used choking as he means to keep Jill silent.

Also, I don't think this argument could possibly convince a jury that he wasn't guilty of murder. He didn't intend to murder her but he strangles her with sustained force long enough to kill her. I can't remember the exact legal wording regarding the law of murder ( someone was kind enough to post it recently in a thread) but from memory, the fact that he knows that sustained strangulation with that amount of force would be likely to result in her death, is means enough to convict him of murder, regardless of whether he says he 'intended' to or not.
He might know that strangulation can result in death, though he might not have been- at that very moment- cognisant of his actions because he was preoccupied with the rape, which distracted his attention from the amount of pressure he was applying to the neck/throat, &#8216;I honestly didn&#8217;t think I was choking her that hard&#8217;. Now, not paying attention to something so critical at that point in time is negligent, because he obviously should have been attentive to wtf he was up to. I am obviously aware of the ridiculous irony of what I am saying here, given that a rape was in process, though this conversation gets to the technicalities of the law, insofar as I can see it all, so we need to be making completely ridiculous points like these. I apologise to everyone.

I don't think a jury can believe a word he says regarding the account of what happened or his feelings of remorse as he's already proven with the rehabilitation that he lied and told them what they wanted to hear just to get an early release.
I believe Bayley is capable of genuine compassion, remorse, sympathy, though I think that when he gets into a certain environment (macho, blokey, masculine- like say his gym), he is impressionable and he can change. That note about how he &#8216;lied his way out&#8217; could quite possibly have been posturing on his part in front of mates- though I do believe he just gamed the system there (Christians- who believes &#8216;em, eh? Wink, wink). What we need in society is to disband masculinity and machismo, then crimes against women will plummet. Crimes against women are about power and control- and bragging to your mates about it. If you get rid of the bragging to your mates part, then we&#8217;ll lose 90% of crimes against women in a jiffy- and all wars, too. George Bush only went to war to &#8216;get back&#8217; at the arabs- he was far better off securing america&#8217;s borders at far less cost. It&#8217;s all about show-boating, and it leaves many victims. I reckon bayley has been a victim of an appalling culture of machismo which has left him a predator attacking victims. He&#8217;s damaged.

 

[SisterWolf]

Don't suppose you copied it?

No, but it did state that she was vaginally, anally, and orally raped. That is what the 3 counts of rape refers to. I feel utterly sick writing that. Sorry, everyone - just wanted to clear up those 3 charges as it is obviously confusing some people.

I imagine the police would never have charged him with those 3 counts if they didn't have enough evidence to substantiate it. I believe the autopsy report would contain evidence that proves this was the case, although I doubt the details of this would ever be released - it is just too horrific to release those details to the public. I believe that's what the magistrate has suppressed.

 

[KG1]

Indeed - several interpretations of the words "Get out of there", as posted by a few folks now. And that's the benefit of a forum like this - multiple minds all contributing their interpretations and thoughts. I hadn't even thought about it referring to her handbag (or perhaps even the still-missing ABC shopping bag), or even just an intruding hand trying to get into her clothing.

And of course - as has been mentioned - the added possibility of accuracy given the non-English speaking witnesses who needed a translator in court.

If It was Jill saying those words or similar, I really think it would be far more vehement language and a struggle if it was related to her person.

Another thought - it may have been a resident living in the area overlooking the laneway, telling the people below to 'Get out of there', after hearing, but not necessarily seeing anyone.

 

[Paulie11]

One thing which hasn’t been mentioned much at all, though I think is absolutely critical, is that he has apparently messaged/phoned his mate right at around the time of the attack- it would be that mate he is seen leaving that pub with. I presume to enlist him in helping out in disposing of Jill. If it is true that he taxi’d it there and back, then what would Bayley be thinking after he had a dead body lying there, maybe in Ovens Street? He hides it in the laneway, but then has to walk home? So catches a taxi back, but then needs to ride back and get rid of the body. This is ****ed up. So he must have called his mate to come down- offering him some baloney on the phone about how some ‘lebos’ jumped him and slashed his car tyres and now he needs a ride home, can he come and get him. imagine his mate said ok, arrives at around 3ish, only to see Bayley springing this story on him of a dead chick he ‘kind of had a fling with, though it got out of control and she died’, ‘so you have to help me, man, cos they’ll think I killed her, and I can’t have that’. That would have been a terrible scenario for his mate. He should have clocked bayley and then bolted to the cop shop. Good story, but this is reality, and in reality, most likely, his mate would have helped him somehow… That is one friend who is thankful who went to bed early and missed those calls. Contrast that guy’s fate with poor Tom who had missed messages of a different kind… too tragic.

 

[Brightbird]

This was discussed in one of the earlier Jill Meagher threads. It's possible that Bayley could be convicted of murder, regardless of intent. He has admitted to rape, which carries a sentence greater than 10 years, and he caused her death in the course or furtherance of that crime (we assume). I will be very interested to hear what his defense is. If there are any lawyers around, please clarify if I have misunderstood.

Victorian Crimes Act 1958

3A. Unintentional killing in the course or furtherance of a crime of violence

(1) A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person by an act
of violence done in the course or furtherance of a crime the necessary
elements of which include violence for which a person upon first conviction
may, under or by virtue of any enactment, be sentenced to level 1 imprisonment
(life) or to imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more shall be liable to be
convicted of murder as though he had killed that person intentionally.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s3a.html

 

[Jewel]

I thought the phone call to his workmate was prior to the attack on Jill. It was 1:20am I think... Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Paulie11]

I thought the phone call to his workmate was prior to the attack on Jill. It was 1:20am I think... Correct me if I am wrong.

oh yeah, quite right you are. It was after he had fought with his g/f and was attempting to get into contact with her, she was ignoring his calls, so he might have called his mate to give him a lift home. Still, had bayley not known his mate was asleep, he might have called him to help out after the fact.

 

[Paulie11]

This was discussed in one of the earlier Jill Meagher threads. It's possible that Bayley could be convicted of murder, regardless of intent. He has admitted to rape, which carries a sentence greater than 10 years, and he caused her death in the course or furtherance of that crime (we assume). I will be very interested to hear what his defense is. If there are any lawyers around, please clarify if I have misunderstood.

Victorian Crimes Act 1958

3A. Unintentional killing in the course or furtherance of a crime of violence

(1) A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person by an act
of violence done in the course or furtherance of a crime the necessary
elements of which include violence for which a person upon first conviction
may, under or by virtue of any enactment, be sentenced to level 1 imprisonment
(life) or to imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more shall be liable to be
convicted of murder as though he had killed that person intentionally.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s3a.html

So if bayley can be convicted of murder- dropping the usual requirement of proving intent- then how can his defence team allow him to plead not guilty? I suppose he is still legally allowed a plea, as per process, though it is moot. That's interesting. I think there is a bit more to this.

 

[SisterWolf]

He might know that strangulation can result in death, though he might not have been- at that very moment- cognisant of his actions because he was preoccupied with the rape, which distracted his attention from the amount of pressure he was applying to the neck/throat, ‘I honestly didn’t think I was choking her that hard’. Now, not paying attention to something so critical at that point in time is negligent, because he obviously should have been attentive to wtf he was up to.

Legally, I don't think you could use that as a defence. At all. My understanding based on the technicalities of the law as I know it.

I believe Bayley is capable of genuine compassion, remorse, sympathy, though I think that when he gets into a certain environment (macho, blokey, masculine- like say his gym), he is impressionable and he can change. That note about how he ‘lied his way out’ could quite possibly have been posturing on his part in front of mates- though I do believe he just gamed the system there (Christians- who believes ‘em, eh? Wink, wink). What we need in society is to disband masculinity and machismo, then crimes against women will plummet. Crimes against women are about power and control- and bragging to your mates about it. If you get rid of the bragging to your mates part, then we’ll lose 90% of crimes against women in a jiffy- and all wars, too. George Bush only went to war to ‘get back’ at the arabs- he was far better off securing america’s borders at far less cost. It’s all about show-boating, and it leaves many victims. I reckon bayley has been a victim of an appalling culture of machismo which has left him a predator attacking victims. He’s damaged.

I agree he's damaged (which is absolutely no excuse whatsoever), but I completely disagree that he's capable of genuine compassion, empathy or remorse. This is evident in the police interview where he confesses. The entire interview shows that even though he's feigning remorse, he keeps mentioning himself and his own predicament - showing exactly that the only thing he's concerned about is himself. That description I posted above about a psychopathic personality definitely applies to Bayley - behind every action and reaction is a self-serving motivation. It is so apparent from that interview that his personality has never matured and is still stuck in that selfish, self-serving, unpredictable mentality of a child. Just about all the information we have on him and his behaviour supports this. "I can't imagine how she feels, but I know how I feel"

His entire interview reminds me of a child trying to get out of being punished. "I didn't mean to....."

"I want to do the right thing" (because I got caught and you've just shown me all the evidence you've got against me, so even though I've been sitting here denying this for 10 hours, I realise that I'm just going to have to confess now because I'm up **** creek without a paddle and I want to paint myself as the co-operative, remorseful guy who accidentally made a boo-boo)

"I'm going to jail for a long time man. It's no life." - Very telling that he's only concerned about himself. He's taken someone's life, yet he's more concerned about the quality of his OWN life!

 

[Paulie11]

I don&#8217;t buy into the medical world&#8217;s new pet theory. Psychopathy, like ADHD, is a fad. I don&#8217;t think bayley is psychopathic, I think he is a reckless idiot, who perhaps is immature, though I don&#8217;t think bayley has it in him to go on murderous rampages like psychos. It is possible a personality like bayley&#8217;s could develop into it, though I doubt he would have. Psychopaths are missing a dimension, I don&#8217;t think bayley was. I just think he was a typical misogynistic male who thought women were playthings you can push around- because men are more powerful and should get their way, and women are more stupid and less cunning so should &#8216;know their place&#8217;, presumably listening to bayley&#8217;s commands.
The greatest argument I can see for bayley being immature is all this sex he needs, he seems to like playing with himself a lot, or rather playing illicitly with others.
I know there is a need to paint people like bayley as monsters, though I don&#8217;t think he is- after all, those who didn&#8217;t know of his history, which might have been everyone in his immediate circle these days, thought he was a good, fun, chirpy, bloke. I do recall, however, someone saying bayley had a meditative side and used to keep to himself- maybe that was because he had something to hide&#8230;

what i can buy is that bayley was sexually deviant. that is something i definitely think. it seems to be all about the sex with bayley- hence the immaturity. i don't think he had some axe to grind against the world or some alternative motive or anything. a psychopath seems to be more mentally sharp and a bit twisted in a way that i don't think bayley was.
i actually feel sorry for bayley in a way, because i see him as kind of pathetic. because our society doesn't see bayley as a victim, we can never properly fix our society to prevent men like him from becoming victims who offend against others. so there will be more victims- like him and like jill. it really is a cycle of violence from damaged men damaging women. but society doesn't see it that way, so victims will continue to accumulate.

 

[Scoobysnack]

Legally, I don't think you could use that as a defence. At all. My understanding based on the technicalities of the law as I know it.




I agree he's damaged (which is absolutely no excuse whatsoever), but I completely disagree that he's capable of genuine compassion, empathy or remorse. This is evident in the police interview where he confesses. The entire interview shows that even though he's feigning remorse, he keeps mentioning himself and his own predicament - showing exactly that the only thing he's concerned about is himself. That description I posted above about a psychopathic personality definitely applies to Bayley - behind every action and reaction is a self-serving motivation. It is so apparent from that interview that his personality has never matured and is still stuck in that selfish, self-serving, unpredictable mentality of a child. Just about all the information we have on him and his behaviour supports this. "I can't imagine how she feels, but I know how I feel"

His entire interview reminds me of a child trying to get out of being punished. "I didn't mean to....."

"I want to do the right thing" (because I got caught and you've just shown me all the evidence you've got against me, so even though I've been sitting here denying this for 10 hours, I realise that I'm just going to have to confess now because I'm up **** creek without a paddle and I want to paint myself as the co-operative, remorseful guy who accidentally made a boo-boo)

"I'm going to jail for a long time man. It's no life." - Very telling that he's only concerned about himself. He's taken someone's life, yet he's more concerned about the quality of his OWN life!

I agree.... the worst part is he thinks he has us bluffed!
Well he did seem to fool the parole board:furious: