Australia Australia - Two Female Backpackers attacked at Salt Creek, SA, 9 Feb 2016

[PrimeSuspect]

Roman Heinze is not an Australian name. A newcomer.

That explains him speaking in German to the German. Maybe speaking in their own language calmed him down?

 

[MsAnais]

SO glad they finally named him!! Phew! Long time coming. He doesn't deserve ANY anonymity.

This picture pleases me. (Just after his arrest):

http://www.news.com.au/national/sou...s/news-story/6d73b9611cf762ddf3c62fd8e7c2037b

 

[SouthAussie]

That explains him speaking in German to the German. Maybe speaking in their own language calmed him down?

According to the Advertiser article, he came over here with his family in 1959 ... and went back to Germany with them in the 70s for a short time before returning to Australia again. So it sounds as though, within his family at least, he may have had a good grip on the German language.

.

 

[SouthAussie]

I also saw in the Advertiser article that the Advertiser successfully applied for his name to be released after further charges, to be tried later this year, were dropped.


Those orders — some of the most draconian in state history — were no longer needed after prosecutors dropped charges that would have seen Heinze stand trial for a fourth time for alleged sexual offending later this year.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...s/news-story/6d73b9611cf762ddf3c62fd8e7c2037b

 

[DRT]

I did notice this one the tweets. Now that the suppression has been lifted I am still going to call him the creep. Whoever labelled him that was correct.
Sean Fewster‏Verified account @SeanFewster [video=twitter;862531339219648513]https://twitter.com/SeanFewster/status/862531339219648513[/video]




Court hears kidnapper is appealing against his conviction for the #SaltCreek offences. Has confessed to sex assault of a third backpacker.

 

[DRT]

SO glad they finally named him!! Phew! Long time coming. He doesn't deserve ANY anonymity.

This picture pleases me. (Just after his arrest):

http://www.news.com.au/national/sou...s/news-story/6d73b9611cf762ddf3c62fd8e7c2037b

Anais you and I sometimes think alike. Best I have seen him look.

 

[they'll get you]

Was this predator charging these tourists as a tour guide?

 

[DRT]

The creep is in the Court of Criminal Appeal Monday. I don't understand how when a case can be appealed when in all reality defended. The defence rested after the prosecution called all witnesses without even calling the accused who was the only other person present. I guess we will see on Monday.

• [h=2]Court Details[/h] Date: Monday 15th May 2017 at 10:00a.m.
  Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
  Court Room: COURT 2
  Location: Sir Samuel Way Building, Victoria Square, Adelaide
  Judicial Officer: Justice PEEK
  
  

  ---

  [h=2]Case Details[/h] Participant: HEINZE, Roman
  Complainant: APPLICATION APPLICANT
  Charge: Application For Permission To Appeal Against Conviction
  Hearing Type: Application for permission to appeal against conviction
  Case #: 1 SCCRM-17-121
  
  
  

 

[aequitas]

 

[SouthAussie]

• [h=2]Court Details[/h] Date: Monday 15th May 2017 at 10:00a.m.
  Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
  Court Room: COURT 2
  Location: Sir Samuel Way Building, Victoria Square, Adelaide
  Judicial Officer: Justice PEEK
  
  

RSBM

So, this creep's appeal will be heard by Justice David Peek.

I have been reading up on the success rate of appeals. They are remarkably high - close to 50% success - however, these successes include appeals by defence and prosecution.

Some of the reasons for the defence winning an appeal seem profoundly pathetic, and not in the best interests AT ALL of the poor victim .. nor the public (due to the precedence it sets, imo).

Some successes seem to stem around 'rehabilitation'. So, if you have been good (or not caught/tried) for a number of years, your past unpunished sins are somehow partially forgiven - despite the permanent/semi-permanent damage done to the victim. :shakehead:

One of Justice Peek's appeal rulings ....

BBM

The most significant reduction — 51.2 per cent — was made to the jail time of a man originally sentenced to seven years and 10 months for sexual offending.
He cannot be identified because he committed his offences between 1996 and 1998, when he was 12 years old and his victim 15 years old, but only faced sentencing last year.

Justices Tom Gray, David Peek and Anne Bampton cut the man’s sentence to three years and nine months, saying his initial penalty was “manifestly excessive”.
They agreed the original sentencing judge had failed to give weight to the man’s rehabilitation since 1998, and the delay between offending and punishment.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...e/news-story/7c510774d4e42a26bb3684f39aec3f18

 

[SouthAussie]

Some of the other reasons for appeal success:

- judge failed to warn the jury they should be more cautious when accepting unsworn evidence

- "guilty of fracturing his partner’s nose and bruising her eye sockets" ... sentencing judge had not considered whether his partner could have inflicted the injuries to herself or fallen over

- judge was too emotive in his summing up to the jury and had equated Mr Fraser’s intoxication to the position of a retarded person, a child, or an animal

Interesting article, worth a quick read:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...e/news-story/7c510774d4e42a26bb3684f39aec3f18

 

[tlorik]

Wait. His sentence was excessive? This a*hole, creep, was using a website as a hunting ground. He was targeting young women for sexual abuse and attempted murder. The government has basically protected this ass over the last year. In my opinion, for what it's worth, his picture should have been on the front page of every paper in SA saying "have you seen this jerk" every day instead of being covered up. Who knows how many others he approached? Sorry i haven't been keeping up like i should. Long week for me. I have a daughter this age. If this a*hole was out and about and no one told me, I'd be super pissed.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[DRT]

RSBM

So, this creep's appeal will be heard by Justice David Peek.

I have been reading up on the success rate of appeals. They are remarkably high - close to 50% success - however, these successes include appeals by defence and prosecution.

Some of the reasons for the defence winning an appeal seem profoundly pathetic, and not in the best interests AT ALL of the poor victim .. nor the public (due to the precedence it sets, imo).

Some successes seem to stem around 'rehabilitation'. So, if you have been good (or not caught/tried) for a number of years, your past unpunished sins are somehow partially forgiven - despite the permanent/semi-permanent damage done to the victim. :shakehead:

One of Justice Peek's appeal rulings ....

BBM

I would hope at this stage the predatory behaviour of someone with 15 attempts at picking up tourists hoping that they won't report the incidents because they are too remote and the tourists may want to get home to get away. While as I have said it isn't a crime to respond to a gumtree ad, the persistence of continuing the hunt until you catch one is.

Lets hope he doesn't win this one.

 

[SouthAussie]

I would hope at this stage the predatory behaviour of someone with 15 attempts at picking up tourists hoping that they won't report the incidents because they are too remote and the tourists may want to get home to get away. While as I have said it isn't a crime to respond to a gumtree ad, the persistence of continuing the hunt until you catch one is.

Lets hope he doesn't win this one.

I am hoping that the judgement given by Justice Trish Kelly in the Carly Ryan case can set a precedence against these predators that use the internet as their hunting ground.

Whether it be Gumtree or another website, the predator's intention is not in line with the purpose and intention of the website.

''Another concerning feature of your behaviour is that even after murdering Carly Ryan, upon your return home you appear to have continued on with your internet communications with other young girls as if nothing had happened,'' she said. ''The police found you at the computer with a chat site open on the day of your arrest.''

Justice Kelly said Newman's plan was an incredibly cruel thing to do to a beautiful and impressionable child.

It was one of up to 200 fictitious internet identities he had created in a bid to communicate and have sex with young girls.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/sex-predator-jailed-for-life-20100331-revm.html

 

[JLZ]

RSBM

So, this creep's appeal will be heard by Justice David Peek.

I have been reading up on the success rate of appeals. They are remarkably high - close to 50% success - however, these successes include appeals by defence and prosecution.

Some of the reasons for the defence winning an appeal seem profoundly pathetic, and not in the best interests AT ALL of the poor victim .. nor the public (due to the precedence it sets, imo).

Some successes seem to stem around 'rehabilitation'. So, if you have been good (or not caught/tried) for a number of years, your past unpunished sins are somehow partially forgiven - despite the permanent/semi-permanent damage done to the victim. :shakehead:

One of Justice Peek's appeal rulings ....

BBM

According to the details posted by DRT, what will be heard Monday is the application for permission to appeal--not the appeal itself.

 

[JLZ]

- "guilty of fracturing his partner’s nose and bruising her eye sockets" ... sentencing judge had not considered whether his partner could have inflicted the injuries to herself or fallen over

(snipped)

Good God.

 

[JLZ]

Heinze hasn't been sentenced yet so he'll be applying to appeal against the conviction not against the severity of the sentence. I take it that roughly he'll be saying that it hasn't been properly proved that he did the thing, not that yeah but it wasn't all that bad and besides I'm disadvantaged and stuff so let me off light.

 

[JudgeJudi]

In South Australia it's called an Application for Permission to Appeal, and it will be interesting to learn what his grounds for appeal are. He could say that it's based on an error of law or that the judge misdirected the jury. I can't think of any other reason offhand. Here's hoping it's thrown out of court.

 

[JudgeJudi]

The elderly father of Salt Creek kidnapper Roman Heinze has admitted his son deserves to be behind bars for terrorising backpackers, but denied he is a monster.

Speaking to Ten from his home one day after his son’s identity was revealed, Werner Heinze said he was shocked to discover his ‘nasty’ crimes in 2014.

‘He has an aggressive, disrespectful and nasty character, but he’s no monster,’ Heinze told Ten.

‘I’m shocked he’s been convicted. He should pay for it. Jail is where he needs to be.’

[Morrisa, in the second pic in this article he does look like Ivan Milat. In the pic immediately below that, he looks like Tom Sellick]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...k-backpackers-South-Australia-Salt-Creek.html

 

[JudgeJudi]

In a victim impact statement, the German woman told the court she feared she would die during the attack and had since relived the horror 'hundreds of times'.

The Brazilian woman said she still had to deal with the physical scars of the attack and felt fear every time she went to the beach. 'Every day I see where the rope he used cut into my ankles and wrists. My legs are full of scars,' she said.

The third woman RH has been convicted of assaulting said in her victim impact statement that she said she was determined to never stop travelling or trusting people, despite what happened.

'Maybe I am not the best example of strength or the best testimonial for women's rights. But I am happy that I had a chance to play my small role in the confrontation against a big enemy that here is embodied by the violence of Mr Heinze.

Do not give up, trust justice, keep on loving.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...k-backpackers-South-Australia-Salt-Creek.html

Three very brave women who have no doubt saved countless others from terrifying encounters, or worse, at the hands of this evil individual. He is a monster.