Found Deceased Australia - Samuel Thompson, 22, Albion, Qld, 7 March 2017 *Arrests* #3

[MsAnais]

Here's an interesting article on judge only vs jury trials in Aus....

(warning: be prepared to look upon the smug face of Gittany :facepalm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-28/barns-simon-gittany-and-the-case-for-judge-only-trials/5121624

 

[MsAnais]

Then there's this :

FORMER Islamic bookshop owner Omar Succarieh will have his trial over the alleged extortion of a Brisbane cafe *operator heard without a jury.

The 33-year-old yesterday won the right to a rare judge-only trial after his lawyers successfully argued that “significant pre-trial publicity” meant he was far more likely to be “remembered” by prospective jurors.

....Judge alone trials are a rare event in Queensland.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...e/news-story/f61af9bd8f0db3dc8af20175a8f3f3ed


They have to have strong grounds. I'm thinking AD may indeed have strong enough grounds. He's received so much publicity compared to RB. And every article refers to his history.

 

[Marples]

Here's an interesting article on judge only vs jury trials in Aus....

(warning: be prepared to look upon the smug face of Gittany :facepalm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-28/barns-simon-gittany-and-the-case-for-judge-only-trials/5121624

Oh the Git. That smug look sure faded though. The sentencing statements in that case were exceptional I thought. She was wonderfully thorough.

I wonder about it. If he'll assert he won't get a fair trial due to being well known/media reports around his time in Syria. That said, if my defense was based on emotion, I'd go for a jury. If it was based on fact, I'd try a judge only, I think.

No promise he'd get it of course, even if he applies for judge only. But I do wonder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MsAnais]

Oh the Git. That smug look sure faded though. The sentencing statements in that case were exceptional I thought. She was wonderfully thorough.

I wonder about it. If he'll assert he won't get a fair trial due to being well known/media reports around his time in Syria. That said, if my defense was based on emotion, I'd go for a jury. If it was based on fact, I'd try a judge only, I think.

No promise he'd get it of course, even if he applies for judge only. But I do wonder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder too, now that you've brought it up.

People have strong feelings about his past one way or the other, as we've seen on this thread. I think it would be hard to find impartial jurors, especially when the media has focused so much on him as opposed to the mysterious RB.

 

[slinkyminx73]

Throwing it out there: does anyone think AD particularly will seek a judge only trial?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's possible this is why media is keeping details to a minimum.
A judge only trial would be for a guilty plea, or where a jury cannot be unbiased.
I think with the public interest the DPP will want a jury trial but perhaps for the family a judge only trial would be best.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Marples]

I wonder too, now that you've brought it up.

People have strong feelings about his past one way or the other, as we've seen on this thread. I think it would be hard to find impartial jurors, especially when the media has focused so much on him as opposed to the mysterious RB.

Yes. I suppose it depends on what evidence there is. If there was a strong case on Physical or circumstantial evidence, I'd perhaps go for a jury trial and run a PTSD type defence? If the evidence was poor, or even weaker against AD than RB, I'd opt for judge only. JMO.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Marples]

Then there's this :

FORMER Islamic bookshop owner Omar Succarieh will have his trial over the alleged extortion of a Brisbane cafe *operator heard without a jury.

The 33-year-old yesterday won the right to a rare judge-only trial after his lawyers successfully argued that “significant pre-trial publicity” meant he was far more likely to be “remembered” by prospective jurors.

....Judge alone trials are a rare event in Queensland.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...e/news-story/f61af9bd8f0db3dc8af20175a8f3f3ed


They have to have strong grounds. I'm thinking AD may indeed have strong enough grounds. He's received so much publicity compared to RB. And every article refers to his history.

Agree. And because it's not a criminal history, as he's not been charged re Syria, it'd be allowed in the prosecutions argument possibly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

I would be more interested to know what ST's cause of death was, and to what extent the brutality of the crime?
That hasn't been referred to yet except what we have read in msm, about outward appearances of a serious assault. We don't actually know if that was the cause of death yet? If ST was tortured in any way that would add to the brutality of how he died, and make a more solid case for premeditation, thinking about what they were doing and acting/planning that out. There are still a lot of questions here of the seriousness of what was inflicted on Sam IMO.

 

[Karinna]

Agree. And because it's not a criminal history, as he's not been charged re Syria, it'd be allowed in the prosecutions argument possibly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do they normally bring previous stuff into a trial about the accused? I didn't think they did?

 

[Karinna]

Yes. I suppose it depends on what evidence there is. If there was a strong case on Physical or circumstantial evidence, I'd perhaps go for a jury trial and run a PTSD type defence? If the evidence was poor, or even weaker against AD than RB, I'd opt for judge only. JMO.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't think PTSD is a murder defense is it?

 

[Karinna]

I also wonder in this case if any ptsd is mentioned as a defense, it refers to one of the perps. only, if that is even determined by an appropriate professional yet? Then the other perp. was not suffering ptsd, but yet they are both charged with the same crime, how does that work? The one not affected must of been involved in the killing too, so why didn't he intervene and try to stop the murder?

 

[slinkyminx73]

Do they normally bring previous stuff into a trial about the accused? I didn't think they did?

They can if the defence brings it up in any way shape or format - even subliminally...... it allows the DPP to bring it in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[slinkyminx73]

I also wonder in this case if any ptsd is mentioned as a defense, it refers to one of the perps. only, if that is even determined by an appropriate professional yet? Then the other perp. was not suffering ptsd, but yet they are both charged with the same crime, how does that work? The one not affected must of been involved in the killing too, so why didn't he intervene and try to stop the murder?

There is a law for that scenario too.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SouthAussie]

It's possible this is why media is keeping details to a minimum.
A judge only trial would be for a guilty plea, or where a jury cannot be unbiased.
I think with the public interest the DPP will want a jury trial but perhaps for the family a judge only trial would be best.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I, too, think that details are being kept to a minimum to not affect the outcome of any trial. Which to me speaks to a jury trial. There likely will not be any exceptional circumstances to warrant a judge only trial.

It is only the perpetrators/defence that can request a judge only trial. It could go severely against them, should either of them win that. A judge will not be swayed by any emotions.

A jury may consider how young the alleged perps are, how clumsy and futile they were about covering their tracks ... as we all seem to do. Leaves a lot more room for the defence to appeal to emotions. "They are not really bad boys, they are young ..."

Of course, we do not yet know how brutal the murder of Sam may have been. That may change everyone's opinion.

 

[MsAnais]

I, too, think that details are being kept to a minimum to not affect the outcome of any trial. Which to me speaks to a jury trial. There likely will not be any exceptional circumstances to warrant a judge only trial.

It is only the perpetrators/defence that can request a judge only trial. It could go severely against them, should either of them win that. A judge will not be swayed by any emotions.

A jury may consider how young the alleged perps are, how clumsy and futile they were about covering their tracks ... as we all seem to do. Leaves a lot more room for the defence to appeal to emotions. "They are not really bad boys, they are young ..."

Of course, we do not yet know how brutal the murder of Sam may have been. That may change everyone's opinion.

BBM

Very true.

 

[possumheart]

I, too, think that details are being kept to a minimum to not affect the outcome of any trial. Which to me speaks to a jury trial. There likely will not be any exceptional circumstances to warrant a judge only trial.

It is only the perpetrators/defence that can request a judge only trial. It could go severely against them, should either of them win that. A judge will not be swayed by any emotions.

A jury may consider how young the alleged perps are, how clumsy and futile they were about covering their tracks ... as we all seem to do. Leaves a lot more room for the defence to appeal to emotions. "They are not really bad boys, they are young ..."

Of course, we do not yet know how brutal the murder of Sam may have been. That may change everyone's opinion.

And the act is the bottom line really, unless there is a self defence argument, which imo would be very late coming since they jointly disposed of Sam and his car. It makes me sad to write that.

 

[Karinna]

There is a law for that scenario too.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What would that law be?

 

[Karinna]

I, too, think that details are being kept to a minimum to not affect the outcome of any trial. Which to me speaks to a jury trial. There likely will not be any exceptional circumstances to warrant a judge only trial.

It is only the perpetrators/defence that can request a judge only trial. It could go severely against them, should either of them win that. A judge will not be swayed by any emotions.

A jury may consider how young the alleged perps are, how clumsy and futile they were about covering their tracks ... as we all seem to do. Leaves a lot more room for the defence to appeal to emotions. "They are not really bad boys, they are young ..."

Of course, we do not yet know how brutal the murder of Sam may have been. That may change everyone's opinion.

BBM, That is what i just said. There has been no official C.O.D. stated yet, so we don't know that yet. <modsnip>

 

[SouthAussie]

I don't think PTSD would even come into it. Yes, Dyball saw his friend get blown up by a mine. But it wasn't enough for him to turn into a babbling mess and be too afraid to stay in Syria and continue to do whatever he did.
He only came home because he was compelled to do so, after his arrest in Germany.
There are no landmines here, very few loud booms that echo the sounds of a landmine.

The PTSD would have to be pre-diagnosed, not post-diagnosed, to even be considered. A bit like Tosser's case.
He tried that line for a while, till it was revealed that he was not autistic ... he had OCD, he had social anxiety, he was a supreme jerk. He was not autistic.

.

 

[Karinna]

I don't think PTSD would even come into it. Yes, Dyball saw his friend get blown up by a mine. But it wasn't enough for him to turn into a babbling mess and be too afraid to stay in Syria a continue to do whatever he did.
He only came home because he was compelled to do so, after his arrest in Germany.
There are no landmines here, very few loud booms that echo the sounds of a landmine.

The PTSD would have to be pre-diagnosed, not post-diagnosed, to even be considered. A bit like Tosser's case.
He tried that line for a while, till it was revealed that he was not autistic ... he had OCD, he had social anxiety, he was a supreme jerk. He was not autistic.

Yes, good points.