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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #121
TJill's handbag was found at 6.30 am Monday.

Tragic, horrible. Some of the details of this case seem similar to the case of 10 year old Jessica Ridgeway, here in Colorado, USA...

Jessica's backpack was planted and found a couple days after she disappeared, like Jill's purse.

Jessica was found 5 days after she disappeared, Jill was found 6 days later.

Their bodies were both left in eerily similar locations, field by a fence.

They both disappeared walking within a mile of their homes.

There are other similarities as well, as I'm sure there are between these cases and many others.

So awful. Blessings to you guys down there in Australia. Jill's funeral was actually held the day that Jessica disappeared...
 
  • #122
I was too young to remember Anita Cobby, I have had a google and it is horrifying that ppl that crazy are walking our streets :/ Does anyone have a link to the forums on here? I would be interested in the websleuths discussions on the topic.

As for the transperancy of the Meagher case, I am all for most details being released. Mainly for the public awareness of what is out there and to make this seemingly "unreal" situation more possible. It also helps us to make our gov more accountable for the filth they deem acceptable to let back out on the streets. JMO
 
  • #123
I was too young to remember Anita Cobby, I have had a google and it is horrifying that ppl that crazy are walking our streets :/ Does anyone have a link to the forums on here? I would be interested in the websleuths discussions on the topic.

As for the transperancy of the Meagher case, I am all for most details being released. Mainly for the public awareness of what is out there and to make this seemingly "unreal" situation more possible. It also helps us to make our gov more accountable for the filth they deem acceptable to let back out on the streets. JMO

The definitive work on the Cobby case is a book called someone elses daughter...I am a friend of Anitas family and attended the hearings with the,...the book is the way to go
 
  • #124
I can't understand the argument for releasing details.. my view is that the families needs come first...its easy to forget that there are people that have had a loved one wrenched from their world never to return.
Try this exercise...go into the room of a loved one and have a look at their everyday personal items,their clothes will smell of them,their CD's will be where they last left them,their toothbrush is in the bathroom...all so mundane...now imagine that person gone forever without a chance to say goodbye and then imagine having to collect up all those belongings to be either given away or kept as the only physical reminder of your loved one.
Then imagine having to read about what was done to your loved one by a stranger in a dark,lonely isolated place and thinking of their torment as they died....I don't think any useful purpose is served by disclosing the details in intimate minutia...it causes unneeded pain
 
  • #125
If releasing the details - or even some of them - shocks some people into realizing just what types of nut-jobs there are out there in the real world, walking among us, and if that shocks them into taking extra care and not putting themselves in harm's way, then I think those details are justified.

Too many people don't know what actually can happen. Yes, they read their murder mystery books, and some of those are quite graphic. But that's a make-believe world that exists only in the readers' heads. But reading details of an actual, real-life case, can make people suddenly think "Holy moly - that's disgusting, that's depraved, that is outrageous" etc. And that realization may make them take just that bit more care.

It's all very well to say that people - especially women - SHOULD be able to go where they want and when they want, a sentiment I totally agree with. But that, unfortunately, is not the real world in some places. While it is less than ideal, I think that reality should trump idealism for one's own safety. I've said that on here before and got roundly criticized as victim blaming - which it is not.

Heavens above - I have been going to Los Angeles on a regular basis for over 15 years for work-related stuff. And I'm a big bloke, and I can look after myself very well. But there are areas that I would not venture on my own. The cops will only go there in 2s or 3s, and some areas they are not allowed to get outside their cars. Now we can say that it SHOULDN'T be that way, that it infringes on peoples' rights to go wherever they want - but it just doesn't work that way in reality.

So, if we accept the premise that there ARE some no-go areas, and that some are more risky for females than for males (although many areas are risky for both), then shocking some people out of their complacency and a naive idealistic view of the world as they think it SHOULD be, is a good thing, IMHO. And releasing details of some of the horrific crimes can do that.

I bet not too many people, especially women, are strolling along Hope St or down that bike path beside the railway line on their own at night since Jill's murder....
 
  • #126
If releasing the details - or even some of them - shocks some people into realizing just what types of nut-jobs there are out there in the real world, walking among us, and if that shocks them into taking extra care and not putting themselves in harm's way, then I think those details are justified.

Too many people don't know what actually can happen. Yes, they read their murder mystery books, and some of those are quite graphic. But that's a make-believe world that exists only in the readers' heads. But reading details of an actual, real-life case, can make people suddenly think "Holy moly - that's disgusting, that's depraved, that is outrageous" etc. And that realization may make them take just that bit more care.

It's all very well to say that people - especially women - SHOULD be able to go where they want and when they want, a sentiment I totally agree with. But that, unfortunately, is not the real world in some places. While it is less than ideal, I think that reality should trump idealism for one's own safety. I've said that on here before and got roundly criticized as victim blaming - which it is not.

Heavens above - I have been going to Los Angeles on a regular basis for over 15 years for work-related stuff. And I'm a big bloke, and I can look after myself very well. But there are areas that I would not venture on my own. The cops will only go there in 2s or 3s, and some areas they are not allowed to get outside their cars. Now we can say that it SHOULDN'T be that way, that it infringes on peoples' rights to go wherever they want - but it just doesn't work that way in reality.

So, if we accept the premise that there ARE some no-go areas, and that some are more risky for females than for males (although many areas are risky for both), then shocking some people out of their complacency and a naive idealistic view of the world as they think it should be, is a good thing, IMHO. And releasing details of some of the horrific crimes can do that.

I bet not too many people, especially women, are strolling along Hope St or down that bike path beside the railway line on their own at night since Jill's murder....
This is well articulated IMO and thank you for an important message. While ideally women should be safe to walk at night, the reality is different. There will always be some degree of danger for women walking on their own as there are some disturbed people around. We call them psychopaths/sociopaths who have no regard for your life, your rights, etc and have no empathy for your well being. In other words, they could not care less about your welfare or safety - only their own evil desires. These are wise words and do need to be said, but people are free to make what they will of it or take it or leave it.
This message has my support.
 
  • #127
If releasing the details - or even some of them - shocks some people into realizing just what types of nut-jobs there are out there in the real world, walking among us, and if that shocks them into taking extra care and not putting themselves in harm's way, then I think those details are justified.

Too many people don't know what actually can happen. Yes, they read their murder mystery books, and some of those are quite graphic. But that's a make-believe world that exists only in the readers' heads. But reading details of an actual, real-life case, can make people suddenly think "Holy moly - that's disgusting, that's depraved, that is outrageous" etc. And that realization may make them take just that bit more care.

It's all very well to say that people - especially women - SHOULD be able to go where they want and when they want, a sentiment I totally agree with. But that, unfortunately, is not the real world in some places. While it is less than ideal, I think that reality should trump idealism for one's own safety. I've said that on here before and got roundly criticized as victim blaming - which it is not.

Heavens above - I have been going to Los Angeles on a regular basis for over 15 years for work-related stuff. And I'm a big bloke, and I can look after myself very well. But there are areas that I would not venture on my own. The cops will only go there in 2s or 3s, and some areas they are not allowed to get outside their cars. Now we can say that it SHOULDN'T be that way, that it infringes on peoples' rights to go wherever they want - but it just doesn't work that way in reality.

So, if we accept the premise that there ARE some no-go areas, and that some are more risky for females than for males (although many areas are risky for both), then shocking some people out of their complacency and a naive idealistic view of the world as they think it SHOULD be, is a good thing, IMHO. And releasing details of some of the horrific crimes can do that.

I bet not too many people, especially women, are strolling along Hope St or down that bike path beside the railway line on their own at night since Jill's murder....

I agree with everything you say apart from releasing the details of the crime...its simply voyuerism and nothing more...put yourself in the victims families place and think how you would feel...causing people any more pain than necessary is not on...if people want that kind of detail theres always crime investigation channel on foxtel
 
  • #128
I was talking to someone on facebook that grew up with Gillian and their feeling is that they want to remember how she lived and not how she died...just their perspective on it.

While I agree in remembering Jill how she lived for people who knew her. But a tribute to where she was found is still befitting. All those crosses where people have been killed along the roads always makes me slow down and think about how I am living my life.

Allison Baden-Clay - another Aussie murder with suspect (hubby) in jail - has a sunflower memorial on the bridge where her body was found. A lot of people - many who did not know Allison, stop and rearrange the flowers, or add another, or simply remember.

I think someone has lovingly made a memorial for Jill and it should not have been removed.
 
  • #129
While I agree in remembering Jill how she lived for people who knew her. But a tribute to where she was found is still befitting. All those crosses where people have been killed along the roads always makes me slow down and think about how I am living my life.

Allison Baden-Clay - another Aussie murder with suspect (hubby) in jail - has a sunflower memorial on the bridge where her body was found. A lot of people - many who did not know Allison, stop and rearrange the flowers, or add another, or simply remember.

I think someone has lovingly made a memorial for Jill and it should not have been removed.

Unless her family are upset by it being there in which case it should be removed.
The family were consulted
 
  • #130
I guess I can understand that POV Paul. I just think society has become so used to movies/tv shows and books that they have started to think that these are the only places things like this could possibly happen. We need to scare our teenagers silly in some way because the watered down version is obviously not getting the message across :/
 
  • #131
I guess I can understand that POV Paul. I just think society has become so used to movies/tv shows and books that they have started to think that these are the only places things like this could possibly happen. We need to scare our teenagers silly in some way because the watered down version is obviously not getting the message across :/

Its not just today...people have always taken risks with their safety and a lot of it comes down to the fact that they dont realise just how brutal these crimes are in reality...a lot more women than you might believe actually have rape fantasies because they think its just rough sex...rape is a hate crime and the violence involved is terrifying...serious beatings are dealt out at the very least...I dont know the answer...perhaps we need to conclude that we are merely another animal species on the planet and there are a number of us that are just wired to inflict pain and misery on others..predators intent on destruction...legislation hasn't helped in the past and nor has being tolerant....I dont know the answer except to take all reasonable steps to make yourself safe and to live in the real world.
 
  • #132
If releasing the details - or even some of them - shocks some people into realizing just what types of nut-jobs there are out there in the real world, walking among us, and if that shocks them into taking extra care and not putting themselves in harm's way, then I think those details are justified.

I agree with everything you say apart from releasing the details of the crime...its simply voyuerism and nothing more...put yourself in the victims families place and think how you would feel...causing people any more pain than necessary is not on...if people want that kind of detail theres always crime investigation channel on foxtel

I agree with you Doc where you say releasing some of the details shocks people into getting the reality of possible dangerous situations. Most of us go about our daily lives oblivious to the terrible things that happen to others in our own towns. I also appreciate Paul's comments that releasing details of the crime causes more unnecessary pain to the family of the victim.

I think that there needs to be a balance in determining what details are released. But I don't know how this is achieved, every situation is different. In some states in the US all details seem to be released including the autopsy reports. I don't know if this amount of detail actually does shock Americans into better protecting themselves. It would be interesting to find out if anyone has done a study on this stuff.

Edit. Maybe it does shock Americans so much they go and buy guns and learn to shoot to protect themselves. I don't think more weapons are a solution.
 
  • #133
Grieving is personal and done on an individual basis. When someone has been taken before their time at the hands of someone else - there is a totally different grief situation to a loved one taken by natural causes. The community often feels responsible for the lack of measure that has been available to protect this person from their ultimate demise. In this instance - the need to put a memorial that is accessible and relevant and worthy of remembrance to the death of the person they are mourning becomes an outward symbol of expressing their grief. There should be respect for the love these people have tried to convey with the memorial placement. However misguided - their intentions were pure.

While the family were not happy with the initial placement of her memorial as it brought up connotations of JM being out of control and was not her usual environment - a simple and heartfelt explanation would have been all that was required and then a go ahead to place the memorial at a more appropriate location. Memorials don't need to be obtrusive-and overtly visible. I am sure a happy medium can be achieved between the two dissenting parties.

People are just wanting a release for their grief - JM's easygoing nature and normality touched the hearts of many and this empathy for Jill is driving this need to memorialise her. Lets embrace the good that people want her to be remembered as an innocent who did not deserve to be taken before her time. And I am sure as long as her memorial location is accessible and viewable the community will be happy with any location.
 
  • #134
Grieving is personal and done on an individual basis. When someone has been taken before their time at the hands of someone else - there is a totally different grief situation to a loved one taken by natural causes. The community often feels responsible for the lack of measure that has been available to protect this person from their ultimate demise. In this instance - the need to put a memorial that is accessible and relevant and worthy of remembrance to the death of the person they are mourning becomes an outward symbol of expressing their grief. There should be respect for the love these people have tried to convey with the memorial placement. However misguided - their intentions were pure.

While the family were not happy with the initial placement of her memorial as it brought up connotations of JM being out of control and was not her usual environment - a simple and heartfelt explanation would have been all that was required and then a go ahead to place the memorial at a more appropriate location. Memorials don't need to be obtrusive-and overtly visible. I am sure a happy medium can be achieved between the two dissenting parties.

People are just wanting a release for their grief - JM's easygoing nature and normality touched the hearts of many and this empathy for Jill is driving this need to memorialise her. Lets embrace the good that people want her to be remembered as an innocent who did not deserve to be taken before her time. And I am sure as long as her memorial location is accessible and viewable the community will be happy with any location.
In my opinion...the families wishes should over ride all other considerations...Im not for a second suggesting that the family resented the gesture at all...thats not what they are about...it is the location that was the issue...not the thought behind it.
The community has the luxury of compartmentalizing their grief...the family are confronted with it 24/7
 
  • #135
In my opinion...the families wishes should over ride all other considerations...Im not for a second suggesting that the family resented the gesture at all...thats not what they are about...it is the location that was the issue...not the thought behind it.
The community has the luxury of compartmentalizing their grief...the family are confronted with it 24/7


Not suggesting the family are not consulted simply that there is an appropriate memorial for the public to view. Obviously the fact that the memorial was removed was mainly due to her family - her ashes are in Perth - she was in Melbourne -I don't doubt that the family have to deal with her grief 24/7 but I think her close friends will be confronted by grief as well and I am merely suggesting that something memorable would be appropriate for them also.
 
  • #136
Not sure if I missed it, but has it been said in MSM that the family
Didn't like the memorial? I've only read that they were consulted, which gives us nothing.

Is it just an assumption that they didn't like it or from a verified insider?

I know it's not relevant to the case, but it's relevant to the current direction of the thread.
 
  • #137
I believe the memorial should have been left there.
It's not like it's in a built up area and obviously the people who go out there to pay their respects and lay flowers have a need to do so, let them I say.

As for the locals who protested. There will always be people who protest, I'm sure they would have been a minority but then again there were council elections here in Vic last weekend.
Seeing this gentleman tending the area after the memorial has been removed breaks my heart.

http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/council-removes-meagher-tribute-20121101-28luj.html
 

Attachments

  • jill-memorial-wiped-729-620x349.jpg
    jill-memorial-wiped-729-620x349.jpg
    113.7 KB · Views: 25
  • #138
I believe the memorial should have been left there.
It's not like it's in a built up area and obviously the people who go out there to pay their respects and lay flowers have a need to do so, let them I say.

As for the locals who protested. There will always be people who protest, I'm sure they would have been a minority but then again there were council elections here in Vic last weekend.
Seeing this gentleman tending the area after the memorial has been removed breaks my heart.

http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/council-removes-meagher-tribute-20121101-28luj.html

Thinking the impetus to move it was more likely the whingeing locals, then the family may have said 'well send it over to us in Perth then'.
 
  • #139
While I agree in remembering Jill how she lived for people who knew her. But a tribute to where she was found is still befitting. All those crosses where people have been killed along the roads always makes me slow down and think about how I am living my life.

Allison Baden-Clay - another Aussie murder with suspect (hubby) in jail - has a sunflower memorial on the bridge where her body was found. A lot of people - many who did not know Allison, stop and rearrange the flowers, or add another, or simply remember.

I think someone has lovingly made a memorial for Jill and it should not have been removed.

It's a pretty personally emotive and evocative situation that's for sure. This what I write is in line as being rhetoric rather than meant as being anything else. When it comes to the crunch, I always feel it's the 'spirtual' memory one has within their heart that is the true memorial. As I see it, you don't need a physical place nor a physical structure (all which can easily be destroyed and taken away) to pay homage.

Those crosses you see from road accidents are only temporary and eventually they disappear and new ones take their place. None of them are made of any permanent type materials nor ever remain ad infinatum. When we pass them, most people think of their own lives and how fragile life can be, rather than actually know or think about the person who was actually killed in that spot.

None of us really know (do we?) what Jill's family thought of having a shrine, a monument placed in the spot her body was found. A monument in a spot that is not a choice Jill or any of her family and friends have chosen, but a spot chosen for Jill by an uncaring ruthless murderer.

Maybe some locals don't want a constant day after day reminder of a spot where a murder victim's body was dumped. That's all you can call it, dumped by a killer. That would be pretty unnerving to some people I would think. If Jill had been found in someone's front garden, would there be this issue about a monument being put in place in the spot her body was found even if it was done in loving memory and with good intent?

Some places do eventually get developed and can become built up, roads get redeveloped and new ones built.... people move on. In 20 years time who are the ones who place the flowers on monuments and on graves? Maybe family and friends and the odd interested bystander might on occassion, but people eventually move on as years go by and the acuteness of the memory fades. Will people still be stopping to put up flowers and rearrage them in 20 years time where Allison' Baden Clay was found?

You only need to look at the poster and guest activity in these threads to see how quickly people move on. I can almost guarantee, that if I were to mention Jill's name (or Allison's) to the average person in the street where I live, most would have long forgotten their names or the exact crime unless first given some reminder of what happened.

Who remembers and pays homage to 9 year old Ebony Simpson, abducted and murdered in 1992, who thinks of the family who were murdered in their own home in 2001 by their own son and brother Sef Gonzales.

How about in 1993, the sexual assaults and axe murders of Karen MacKenzie 31, and her three children, Daniel 16, Amara, 7 and Katrina 5, at their remote rural property in Western Australia.

According to Crime Investigation Australia, a judge ruled that the exact way in which Daniel, Amara and Katrina were killed to be sealed. In fact the crime has been called 'One of the worst crimes in Western Australia' and details of the murders were withheld from the public as they were deemed too gruesome and horrific. The case was so heinous that 'cries for the return of the death penalty could be heard echoing around the State'.

Greenough Family Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
  • #140
None of us really know (do we?) what Jill's family thought of having a shrine, a monument placed in the spot her body was found. A monument in a spot that is not a choice Jill or any of her family and friends have chosen, but a spot chosen for Jill by an uncaring ruthless murderer.

Of all the the great things in your post, this summed it up perfectly for me.

Well said
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
114
Guests online
2,865
Total visitors
2,979

Forum statistics

Threads
632,576
Messages
18,628,653
Members
243,198
Latest member
ghghhh13
Back
Top