NOT GUILTY Australia - Kumanjayi Walker, 19, fatally shot by LE, Yuendumu, Nov 2019

[brissygirl2019]

I agree that the prior military background of Rolfe might come in to play with regard to training. Although on second & third thoughts, perhaps not.

The defence may stay along the lines of the police training side of things and then there is the issue of the offender still being armed after the first shot and still showing intent to injure/threaten the life of the arresting officers, in that case what is the policy for the police? What have they been trained to do in that circumstance?

Not a jury I would want to be on that's for sure.

 

[Trooper]

Kumanjayi 'planned to surrender to police' | The Canberra Times | Canberra, ACT


Kumanjayi Walker planned to hand himself in to police the day after Constable Zachary Rolfe allegedly murdered him during a failed outback arrest, a jury has been told.

Warlpiri elder and Yuendumu community leader Eddie Robertson says the 19-year-old agreed to surrender to police on November 10, 2019.


"I asked Kumanjayi if he can come to the police station and give himself in," he told Rolfe's trial in the Northern Territory Supreme Court on Wednesday.

"He nodded his head and said: 'Yep'."

( this goes somewhere along the lines of my puzzle, why they didn't just wait until after the funeral, since Mr Walker seemed to be hell bent on it, ... and it does explain , in a convoluted way, perhaps, why Kumanjayi was as hell bent on not being arrested on Rolfe's timetable that night. In his mind , he was going to the funeral , then to the police station. Perhaps this was what enraged him so. ) My opinion only.

 

[Trooper]

I agree that the prior military background of Rolfe might come in to play with regard to training. Although on second & third thoughts, perhaps not.

The defence may stay along the lines of the police training side of things and then there is the issue of the offender still being armed after the first shot and still showing intent to injure/threaten the life of the arresting officers, in that case what is the policy for the police? What have they been trained to do in that circumstance?

Not a jury I would want to be on that's for sure.

I would rather be made to sweep the Simpson Desert than be on that jury. Brave people. I do not know the makeup of the jury gender-wise, age wise, heritage wise... maybe that's a good thing.

The thing is, the prosecution claim that Eberl, the other ( former soldier, too ) was actually sitting on Walker, that Walker was incapacitated , disabled from the little pair of scissors, bandaid cutting scissors that caused that tiny puncture in Rolfe's upper arm.. they 'd been dropped at the first shot. .. If that claim holds, then , naturally, the rest of Rolfe's defence crumbles into gravel. ..

It's all a terrible , terrible outcome for everyone, everyone in Yuendumu, in the NT, in Darwin, in Canberra, .. everywhere.

 

[Trooper]

What have they been trained to do in that circumstance? ( from Brissygirl) ..

Snr Sgt Frost,.. and Superintedent Jody Nobbs both testified that they were aware of the training the IRT had received, ( but did not say how long ago the Constables had undergone it ) and that was all they referred to it.. as being aware, but not commenting on the quality or effectiveness of said training. Which I thought was a tad off... my opinion only.

 

[brissygirl2019]

Trooper, which part did you feel was a bit off?

 

[Trooper]

Trooper, which part did you feel was a bit off?

It seems that the 'training' was a bit ad hoc, to me, BG... those coming in from Army backgrounds didn't have to go the full gamut of the training , and non attendance at the training was not considered a barrier to employment..

That coming in from the military ( none seemed to have entered the NT police from the Navy, or the AirForce )... was deemed to be enough.

There has been no evidence given that any of the four constables on the Walker expedition to Yuendumu had a background of experience in the Military Police. Maybe that might come up, but so far, nothing.

 

[Trooper]

and then, there is this.......

NT Police officer denies trying to 'help' Constable Zachary Rolfe with evidence given at Kumanjayi Walker murder trial - ABC News

On Wednesday, prosecutors continued to question Constable James Kirstenfeldt, who was part of the Alice Springs-based immediate response team (IRT) that arrived in Yuendumu in the early evening of Saturday November 9, 2019.

The court has previously been told that four IRT members, including Constable Rolfe, were sent to the community that day to help with general police duties as well as Mr Walker's arrest.

After a short briefing at the Yuendumu police station, the court was told that Constable Rolfe and his partner located Mr Walker at a nearby home, where the teenager stabbed Constable Rolfe in the shoulder with a pair of medical scissors before the shots were fired.

Crown prosecutor Philip Strickland, SC, pressed Constable Kirstenfeldt on his evidence about an email sent to IRT members that afternoon by Yuendumu police sergeant Julie Frost, which outlined a plan to arrest Mr Walker early the following morning.

( continued in the web site ) ...

Bearing in mind, Kirstenfeldt was the Constable who was argumentative and dominating with a Snr Sgt.!... which takes a bit of nerve, really. I am not that sure that Kirstenfeldt is a non hostile witness. I suspect he may be still hostile re Julie Frost.

During his testimony yesterday, Constable James Kirstenfeldt told the court he did not recall seeing Sergeant Frost's email.


However, Mr Strickland told the court that Constable Kirstenfeldt gave a different account about his knowledge of the email during an interview with police investigators 12 days after the shooting.

Mr Strickland showed a video of Constable Kirstenfeldt telling investigators on November 21, 2019: "I'm pretty sure [Sergeant Frost] sent the plan we were going to do, or what we do anyway, which is just intel gather and snatch him in the early morning."

 

[brissygirl2019]

IMO Kirstenfeldt is hostile towards Frost and I’m not surprised by that.

This truly is a mess of a situation and as you said a complete disaster all around … the more I read the more I see a lot of backside covering and there is going to be a lot of collateral fallout at the end of it all. JMO

Edited by me, spelling

 

[JerseyGirl]

Zachary Rolfe trial: fellow officer denies trying to help accused with “don’t recall” answers

 

[Trooper]

Zachary Rolfe trial: fellow officer denies trying to help accused with “don’t recall” answers

Good pickup, JG....


From the Guardian article ...

"A police officer has denied trying to help constable Zachary Rolfe, who is charged with murder, by answering “I don’t recall” multiple times during his evidence at trial.

Constable James Kirstenfeldt continued his evidence on Wednesday in Rolfe’s murder trial."


( on this basis, the 'I don't recall' fluff, I aver that Kirstenfeldt is a hostile witness for the prosecution. .. . Certainly, not a co-operative one, so far.

After this trial is over, perhaps, it might be made clear as to why this extraordinary amount of police employees, of low to high rank , are testifying for the prosecution of one of their own members. It needs to be stated again, this is highly unusual , so unusual I cannot recall it happening before, and particularly under these circumstances.

Obviously, Kirstenfeldt , categorised by a Snr.Sgt. as argumentative and a bit of a 'take over' bloke, would run true to form on the stand, but the other Police personnel are not by any means of a hostile presentation. Willingly appearing for the prosecution. )

 

[Trooper]

Philip Strickland SC, ( Philip is a Barrister at Sydney's pre-eminent Forbes Chambers. He was called to the Bar in 1991 and was appointed Senior Counsel in 2005 )

'Strickland has previously told the court that the case against Rolfe relied not only on his actions during the shooting, but the “context” and the “steps leading up” to it, including the plan.'

(I think there is a lot riding on what went on before, back at the station and the gathering of the Instant Response Team, ( Rolfe, Eberl, Kirstenfeldt, Hawkings ) and the instructions, or advice, or suggestions, whatever Rolfe and Kirstenfeldt choose to call it as , that was given by Snr Sgt Julie Frost, and Jody Nobbs.

That before the murder of Mr.Walker, things had gone skewiff, off kilter, on another tangent. That either deliberately, or accidentally, things went awry and astray and a direction was taken that had a hideous ending. Which is what this trial is basically about. )

 

[brissygirl2019]

Cut from your post Trooper ...

From the Guardian article ...

"A police officer has denied trying to help constable Zachary Rolfe, who is charged with murder, by answering “I don’t recall” multiple times during his evidence at trial.

Constable James Kirstenfeldt continued his evidence on Wednesday in Rolfe’s murder trial."


( on this basis, the 'I don't recall' fluff, I aver that Kirstenfeldt is a hostile witness for the prosecution. .. . Certainly, not a co-operative one, so far.

My thoughts ... Surely Kirstenfeldt was subpoenaed to appear in the trial as a person who was an on-site witness & involved in the incident?

I agree he is a hostile prosecution witness but as one of the officers on the scene & a fellow IRT member working alongside Rolfe, he was always going to go with the "I don't recall" answers to a lot of questions put forward by the prosecution. The prosecution would have been expecting that, no surprises to them there surely I would think. IMO

I too think there is a LOT riding on the before, before at the station directly before the IRT officers left the station, in the days, weeks & probably a long time before the incident, a lot of the before circumstances leading up to the alleged murder of Walker need as much attention as the incident itself . Hopefully it all comes to light in this trial.

IMO

 

[Trooper]

I absolutely agree with you, BG, re the before.. there was a lot going on, ,......

Kirstenfeldt is the first officer from the IRT...( not part of the Frost/Nobbs/ McDonald crew based at Yuendumu ) to be called to the stand ( for the prosecution , not the defence) ... a reluctant entity, it seems. Yet, there he is, for the prosecution. The defence did not want him testifying for Rolfe. There is a story there, for sure.

Yet to testify, .. Eberl, ( who tackled Walker, also, and was holding Walker down at the shooting ) .. and Hawkings... a Senior Constable, nominally, you could say he was in charge of this cohort of Rolfe, Eberl and Kirstenfeldt.. the dog handler constable was not part of the Instant Response Team group, but was in attendance some of the time...

Soooo.. Who will Eberl and Hawkings testify for??.. ... we'll find out this week, I expect...

 

[JLZ]

The prosecution is obliged to call material witnesses who are necessary to telling the story. The witnesses don't get to choose which side they'll testify for. The side which called the witness can't put argumentative or leading questions to its own witness, but the opposing side can, in cross-examination. Except when the witness has been declared hostile by the judge, then the side calling the witness can also cross-examine. A hostile witness is one who is purposely resisting telling the truth. Here are some links I found useful, but not specifically related to NT, which might be a bit different for all I know.
4.10 - Prosecution Failure to Call or Question Witnesses
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...itnesses.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2WbotILK93oruaLcfN2HhY

 

[brissygirl2019]

Cheers, thanks for the link above, legislation, statutes etc can be different in the NT so I would like to look into that a bit more

 

[Trooper]

The prosecution is obliged to call material witnesses who are necessary to telling the story. The witnesses don't get to choose which side they'll testify for. The side which called the witness can't put argumentative or leading questions to its own witness, but the opposing side can, in cross-examination. Except when the witness has been declared hostile by the judge, then the side calling the witness can also cross-examine. A hostile witness is one who is purposely resisting telling the truth. Here are some links I found useful, but not specifically related to NT, which might be a bit different for all I know.
4.10 - Prosecution Failure to Call or Question Witnesses
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwix_L-b04X2AhX6T2wGHXdnBJ0QFnoECAUQAQ&url=https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/86012/sd-bb-13-hostile-witnesses.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2WbotILK93oruaLcfN2HhY

Good stuff, JLZ , and underlines the proposition that there is nothing like a good Tort..

I am now beginning to think that Rolfe ( et al ) will not call any witnesses at all. Not Eberl, not Hawkings...... not no one. Not even himself. I just cannot see him taking the stand, unless he does so against the advice of his barrister, and you know, some people do. Baden -Clay, an example of directly testifying against all advice. ( he was found guilty and sentenced to life )

Kirstenfeldt has not been categorised as a hostile witness by the judge, but there is always the option for a jury to come to that conclusion, and a series of 'I don't recall' s can certainly consolidate that belief. It doesn't take days of testimony. Juries often pick it up by the walk of the witness to the stand..

Of course, had Kirstenfeldt been a defence witness and proceeded to claim that 'he didn't recall'.. that would have been lethal for Rolfe's defence , almost as much as Kirsto saying it for the prosecution.

 

[Trooper]

Trial of NT Police officer over the shooting death of Indigenous man begins | 7.30 - YouTube

Just for background......

 

[Trooper]

Officer tells Zachary Rolfe murder trial Kumanjayi Walker was 'struggling' with police before shots were fired - ABC News

Today's witness was Senior Constable Anthony Hawkings .

He told the court he was standing outside the home where Constable Rolfe and his partner had located Mr Walker when he heard a gun shot and ran to the front door of the house.

“I could see inside the doorway and there was a struggle going on between three people, and there were people outside the house that I could hear and see, yelling,” he said.

He said that, after arriving at the front door of the house, he saw Constable Rolfe struggling with Mr Walker, who was on a mattress with another officer, Constable Adam Eberl.

"Within that few seconds … I remember seeing [Constable Rolfe] holding a firearm in his right hand and … [pointing it] at the subject [who] was on the ground, struggling," he said.

Senior Constable Hawkings said he then saw Constable Rolfe fire two more shots.

Asked by the prosecution how close the firearm was from Mr Walker, Senior Constable Hawkings said: "I knew that the proximity would have been extremely close, within a foot. Very, very close, or closer."

He described Mr Walker's position on the mattress at that time as "potentially prone or on his side … but struggling".

"It was in a split second. There's a fair bit of movement happening at that time."

Prosecutors have previously told the court that Mr Walker was "effectively restrained" when Constable Rolfe fired the second and third shots during the arrest attempt, while the defence has argued Mr Walker was not under the officers' control.

 

[Trooper]

'Prosecutors have previously told the court that Mr Walker was "effectively restrained" when Constable Rolfe fired the second and third shots during the arrest attempt, while the defence has argued Mr Walker was not under the officers' control.'

and this is what the whole thing will come down to. Was Mr Walker restrained, enough, or not. If he was, then it's murder. If he wasn't , then it's manslaughter.

Interesting to hear at last from Snr Constable Hawkings...He ultimately would be considered to be in charge of the operation to arrest Mr. Walker , being of higher rank than Rolfe, Kirstenfeldt and Eberl, but I propose that personality strengths and perspectives may have played a large part in the outcome.. .maybe even over riding rank.

If Kirstenfeldt was up for arguing with a Snr.Sgt. albeit a woman, he most likely was up for arguing with a Snr.Constable....just my opinion.

 

[Trooper]

I now think it probable that Eberl will appear for the prosecution. Unheard of, unheard of a Snr Sgt, a Superindent, a Snr Constable and a Constable appearing for the prosecution of a police officer about a death in Yuendumu. But.. I now think that it's highly likely for Eberl to testify against Rolfe.

This trial has set precedence. Long overdue, but .....