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

[Paul mcGovern]

Here's another one who should never, EVER, be released:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-10/bega-killer-pleads-guilty-to-murder-of-melbourne-school-girl/4418200

Im with you mate...filth

 

[Paul mcGovern]

I cant help but feel so sad for Tom and Jill's family coming up to their first Christmas without her

 

[aust amateur slueth]

I cant help but feel so sad for Tom and Jill's family coming up to their first Christmas without her

same here, its going to be so hard for them.

I hope they know that there are many people who still have them in their thoughts daily

 

[Fuskier]

MOMENTS THAT SHAPED US IN 2012,Julia Rabar, Herald Sun, December 24, 2012.
The tragic murder of Jill Meagher brought our community together in a show of defiance and solidarity.
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/12/13/1226532/113466-peace-march-for-jill-meagher.jpg
www.heraldsun.com.au
Remembering Jill's family this Christmas.

 

[somanto]

Been thinking about Tom and the rest of Jill's family today during Christmas celebrations.

While the general public may start to move on, for them the loss must be more pronounced than ever.

 

[Fuskier]

Alleged killer to appear in Court in three weeks time in Melbourne.
Jill Meagher's alleged killer, Adrian Ernest Bayley, is next due to appear in Court for a committal mention on January 18, 2013.
http://www.smh.com.au Face of Jill Meagher's alleged killer revealed, October 12, 2012.

 

[Makara]

Murdered Jill Meagher’s husband in Dublin with mum.

Adam Lacey December 30, 2012

http://www.thestar.ie/star/murdered-jill-meaghers-husband-in-dublin-with-mum/

 

[Makara]

Two mothers unite in grief after the murders of their beloved daughters, Jill Meagher and Sarah Cafferkey

by: Anthony Dowsley
From: Sunday Herald Sun
January 06, 2013 12:00AM

In a simple but heartfelt message, Ms McKeon wrote to Ms Cafferkey's mum, Noelle Dickson, on Facebook: "I am so sorry for your loss. From one mother to another, I share your grief."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...-sarah-cafferkey/story-e6frf7kx-1226548132229

My heart aches for them both. :cry:

 

[SouthAussie]

Murdered Jill Meagher’s husband in Dublin with mum.

Adam Lacey December 30, 2012

http://www.thestar.ie/star/murdered-jill-meaghers-husband-in-dublin-with-mum/

Nice to see them call AB what he really is .... at least they don't have to tiptoe around sub judice as we do.

Poor Tom, wonder if he really will come back to Australia as his mum has suggested. Hope that he still holds some good memories of our beautiful country, and that AB hasn't obliterated them all.

 

[Jewel]

Hi all, popping in here to catch up prior to the hearing. I read along for a while when JM first went missing, but I have missed a bit in the meantime!

 

[DrWatson]

Article from MSM today:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/victorian-chief-commissioner-ken-lay-to-meet-facebook-rep/story-e6frg6nf-1226550280505

Victorian Chief Commissioner Ken Lay to meet Facebook rep

From: AAP
January 09, 2013 12:07PM

Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print

VICTORIA'S top policeman will meet with Facebook over concerns the site's users incite hatred and undermine the criminal justice system.

Chief Commissioner Ken Lay will meet with the head of Facebook Asia today following his concerns that hate pages could have threatened the high-profile prosecution of Adrian Ernest Bayley, the Melbourne man accused of raping and murdering Melbourne woman Jill Meagher last year.

"It's my understanding that some Facebook management were a little concerned about my comments about the ethics of Facebook so they were keen to meet with me and put their point of view," Mr Lay told Fairfax Radio today.

Mr Lay, who described some of the comments posted regarding the Jill Meagher case as "absolute garbage", said he was pleased the social media site would meet with him.

"I need to understand how we can hold Facebook to account when I believe they act inappropriately," he said.

Mr Lay said it was difficult to enforce laws when much of Facebook's content was managed offshore.

More at the link above.

I think they still aren't coming to terms with the way things are in 2013. It's not really that much different from hate mobs in the street in front of courtrooms. Happening in India for the trial of the accused gang rapists there. This whole thing about suppressing names, faces, comments, etc is way behind the times, and I doubt that it achieves anything in terms of a fairer trial. I think the guidance of a good judge is worth a lot more to the jury, than trying to ban public comments.

Of course, if, as Ken Lay suggests, the comments are completely inaccurate and plain wrong, then rather than try to suppress them, maybe they need to get onto the social sites themselves and simply correct any distortions so that all comments relate to the facts and the truth.

I'm no expert in the legalities of things like that, but it just seems to me that the whole judicial system is still stuck in the 1800s and hasn't yet come to grips with the 21st century and its communications technology. It's only going to get worse.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

In this day and age it has got to be about selecting juries who can rise above anything inflammatory they might have heard in regards to a case and simply view the evidence with a clear mind and make the appropriate judgement. Surely people don't have to walk into a courtroom as jurors with zero knowledge of a case in order to make a just decision with the evidence which is allowed in? Otherwise we would only be allowed to select jurors who have no contact with the media and who would that pool contain, certainly not the brightest sparks in the community who do keep up with current affairs? I think the courts do need to catch up, and they also need to give jurors a little bit more credit.

Police need to be assured of that also and trust the process ... trying to blame Facebook or containing public opinion or online discussion is a waste of time.

 

[DrWatson]

In this day and age it has got to be about selecting juries who can rise above anything inflammatory they might have heard in regards to a case and simply view the evidence with a clear mind and make the appropriate judgement. Surely people don't have to walk into a courtroom as jurors with zero knowledge of a case in order to make a just decision with the evidence which is allowed in? Otherwise we would only be allowed to select jurors who have no contact with the media and who would that pool contain, certainly not the brightest sparks in the community who do keep up with current affairs? I think the courts do need to catch up, and they also need to give jurors a little bit more credit.

Police need to be assured of that also and trust the process ... trying to blame Facebook or containing public opinion or online discussion is a waste of time.

My point exactly. And you raise another excellent point about jurors who do not keep up with current affairs and news not being the brightest sparks in the community. Maybe a bit of a generalization, but mostly true, I suspect.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

We learnt that hard lesson with the Casey Anthony trial didn't we ...

 

[Fuskier]

Trust the jury to get it right in the Jill Meagher case by Justin Quill.
www.heraldsun.com.au
This article discusses authorities fears of social media influence on our Jury system, but suggests that Courts and judges must move with the times and accept that social media is here to stay. While the traditional media follow the rules of subjudice, so must social media because the rules of a ‘fair trial’ must be sacrosanct. The community and our courts must trust in our jury system because Jurors do their job - and they do it well. A trial will overtake social media in a juror's mind because of the impact of sitting in the front row of a trial for six or eight weeks; swearing an oath to do your duty; The Judge giving you directions on what you must do. The community and our courts need to trust our jury system to get it right in the Jill meagher case as Jurors will be influenced more by the direct experience of evidence produced at trial more than social media in the way authorities fear.

In the article Justin Quill is identified as a legal practitioner from a firm of legal eagles.
I agree Makara just like the Industrial era brought significant changes, we are now living in the Electronic era with multimedia which has brought significant changes. IMO we need jurors who read newspapers, keep up to date with current events and keep themselves informed etc. Once selected for Jury Duty, they contain themselves to the Court process, take direction from the Judge regarding admissable evidence, and make judgements representing 'a reasonable man/woman' in the community.

 

[SouthAussie]

A MELBOURNE man accused of the rape and murder of Irishwoman Jill Meagher is due to appear in court again next week.

Adrian Ernest Bayley, 41, is due to appear before Melbourne Magistrates Court for a committal mention on Friday, January 18.
Committal hearings determine whether there is enough evidence for a trial.

Bayley has been held on remand at Melbourne Assessment Prison, after being charged with the rape and murder of the 29-year-old Drogheda woman in September last year.

http://www.irishecho.com.au/tag/adrian-ernest-bayley

In October, a Melbourne magistrate ordered the removal of damaging online material related to Bayley.

This article says the suppression order remains in place until next Friday’s hearing. Then what? Is it renewed ... dropped ?

 

[LegallyBrunette]

http://www.irishecho.com.au/tag/adrian-ernest-bayley



This article says the suppression order remains in place until next Friday’s hearing. Then what? Is it renewed ... dropped ?

Assuming there is enough evidence to proceed to trial I expect the order would stay in place in Victoria.

 

[DrWatson]

Assuming there is enough evidence to proceed to trial I expect the order would stay in place in Victoria.

Ahh yes - the technologically savvy judicial system (NOT) will set up a cosmic barrier around the state's borders. All the interwebz will be stopped right there, dead in their tracks!

As posted above - they should simply adjust to the 21st century, instead of trying to keep things the way they may have been back in the 1800s when a court order could stop a newspaper from printing something, and there was no TV, radio, or internet.

Suppression orders are a bit like sticking a finger in the dam wall, while the water is flooding over the spillway!

Hopeless - it simply reflects the archaic mindset of the judicial system. And lack of trust that people can listen to evidence and make a decision based on that evidence only. With good guidance from a sensible judge.

 

[SouthAussie]

In the courtroom, have a look around to see if you recognise anyone - the accused, the lawyers, the judge, or anyone connected with the trial. The judge will ask whether anyone knows any of the participants. or anything about the trial. If you do, tell the judge as this may be a reason for you to be excused from the jury.

http://www.courts.vic.gov.au/jury-s...-service/juror-selection/jury-selection-court

It may be difficult for any well-read, potentially-effective, savvy prospective juror to not recognise AB, from previously published images as well as images of AB that are still available via Google. Hopefully this will not preclude these types of people from being jurors in any trial that may be forthcoming from the committal mention.

IMO

 

[Makara]

Well said Doc. I agree entirely.

Ahh yes - the technologically savvy judicial system (NOT) will set up a cosmic barrier around the state's borders. All the interwebz will be stopped right there, dead in their tracks!

As posted above - they should simply adjust to the 21st century, instead of trying to keep things the way they may have been back in the 1800s when a court order could stop a newspaper from printing something, and there was no TV, radio, or internet.

Suppression orders are a bit like sticking a finger in the dam wall, while the water is flooding over the spillway!

Hopeless - it simply reflects the archaic mindset of the judicial system. And lack of trust that people can listen to evidence and make a decision based on that evidence only. With good guidance from a sensible judge.