Max Sica found Not Guilty of child’s rape and abuse


This case is one I have not been following since it went to trial, but I see it reported this morning that Sica has been found Not Guilty of the 21 sex offences that date back from 2004. Report from Courier Mail below… 

Interesting that it has been reported that “Sica has become the latest in a growing long line of infamous criminals to win judge only trials – including notorious pedophiles Dennis Ferguson and Roy Schloss.” 

While Judge only trials are rare and difficult to obtain, if a trend develops such as has been suggested, I would be surprised if there are not many more defendant’s in the future who try to argue for a judge only trial.

   

Convicted triple murderer Max Sica found not guilty of child’s rape, abuse

CONVICTED triple murderer Massimo “Max” Sica has been found not guilty of raping and repeatedly abusing a young girl over a four year period.

Sica – who is already serving a record 35-years in jail for the 2003 murder of the Singh siblings – is the latest in a growing list of reviled convicted criminals – including infamous pedophiles Dennis Ferguson and Roy Schloss – to be a acquitted after a rare judge only trial.

Brisbane District Court judge Michael Shanahan delivered the verdict to a stunned packed court – including Sica’s parents Carlo and Anna and his siblings – on Friday morning.

Judge Shanahan deliberated almost two weeks before handing down his verdict 21 sex offences – including child rape.

Sica received three life terms of imprisonment – an”d ordered to serve a minimum of 35-years – for the savage murder of the Singh siblings Neelma, 24, Kunal, 18, and Sidhi, 12.

Judge Shanahan, in his written 50-page decision, said medical evidence revealed the girl physically showed all the hallmarks of being a virgin and could not have been subjected to the sexual attack alleged.

“There is one fact … which causes me significant concern,” he said.

“Considering the medical evidence I cannot be satisfied beyond a seasonable doubt that the penetrative (sexual) acts occurred as described by the (girl).”

Judge Shanahan also commented on the girl’s “credibility”, saying her evidence raised a “number of issues of concern.”

“I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that any of the counts have been proved … (and) verdicts of not guilty are entered to each of the counts.”

Sica, who stood ramrod straight in the dock of Court 31 for the verdict, breathed out deeply and smiled as he heard Judge Shanahan’s decision.

Outside court, Sica’s jubilant brother, Claudio, said: “Justice has finally been served, but not fully.”

“There was no other verdict that could have been given.”

Sica has become the latest in a growing long line of infamous criminals to win judge only trials – including notorious pedophiles Dennis Ferguson and Roy Schloss.

Sica was granted the judge-only trial after his lawyers convinced the court Sica’s notoriety would make it almost impossible to find and impartial panel of jurors anywhere in Queensland.

Sica early last month pleaded not guilty to 21 sex offences, including two counts of rape and one of maintaining a sexual relationship with the child between November 15, 2004 and September 10, 2008.

Then aged 35 to 39, he was also charged with nine counts each of unlawful carnal knowledge and indecent dealing of a child under 16.

The court had been told Sica allegedly had sex with the child, then aged between nine and 13, more than 100 times during the four-year period.

In July, a Brisbane Supreme Court jury found Sica guilty of the 2003 murder of the Singh siblings.

He was sentenced to three life terms, with a record minimum non-parole period of 35-years.

Sica has appealed those verdicts, with a two day hearing scheduled to start in the Court of Appeal in Brisbane on May 27.

About these ads

Prison officers arrested on drug trafficking ring with crims at Barwon Prison


This comes as no surprise actually folks but the ramifications will be wide and far…MORE TO COME

UPDATE 11/07/12

EXCLUSIVE: KILLER bikie Christopher Wayne Hudson and one of Australia’s most feared hitmen were allegedly able to run a drug ring with corrupt guards inside Victoria’s most secure jail.

 

Three Barwon Prison officers were arrested during raids in Geelong and the northern suburbs yesterday, after an eight-month investigation. Two have since been charged with drug offences.

Sources close to the operation claim one of the guards, a 40-year-old man from Grovedale, had formed a close relationship with the two killers and had been monitored having long conversations in their cells, as well as passing notes and other items under their doors.

Authorities are also concerned about information passed between the cells and out of the prison.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Charlie Bezzina: Risk of mixing with the dark side

Barwon Prison security faces fierce scrutiny

Hudson, a Hells Angel, is serving a minimum of 35 years in jail over the 2007 CBD shootings of father of three Brendan Keilar, who died, and Dutch backpacker Paul de Waard.

The contract killer, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is serving 32 years for the murders of Dorothy and Ramon Abbey in 1987.

Charges against him over the murders of police informers Terence and Christine Hodson were dropped.

The veteran trigger man is linked to some of Australia’s most infamous underworld figures and is suspected of multiple murders.

Last night a 40-year-old Grovedale man was charged with trafficking a drug of dependence, misconduct in public office, possessing an unregistered firearm, possessing a prohibited weapon and possessing and using a drug of dependence, while a 40-year-old Norlane man was charged with possessing and using a drug of dependence.

Both were bailed to appear in the Geelong Magistrates’ Court on 26 September.

A 31-year-old female prison officer from Norlane was interviewed and released pending further inquiries.

A 46-year-old Norlane man and an 18-year-old Delahey man, who were not Corrections Victoria staff, were released pending further inquiries.

Operation Puli, run by Victoria Police drug taskforce detectives, started in November after intelligence was passed on by Corrections Victoria.

Houses were raided in the Geelong area and at Delahey, in Melbourne’s northern suburbs, from 7am yesterday.

Cannabis and prescription medication were seized.

Victoria Police acting Deputy Commissioner Jeff Pope said the suspect behaviour was confined to Barwon Prison, the state’s highest-security prison.

“It does seem to be isolated to this core group of prison officers,” Mr Pope said.

“One or two of these guards has formed a relationship with a small group of inmates that is inappropriate.”

Acting Corrections Commissioner Jan Shuard said the guards worked across the prison and were not restricted to one particular section

An aerial shot of Barwon Prison WHERE SCREWS HAVE BEEN ARRESTED AMID A drug trafficking RING INSIDE THE PRISON!

UPDATE 3.15PM 10/07/12

Those arrested were a 40-year-old Grovedale man, a 31-year-old Norlane woman, a 41-year-old Norlane man and a 46-year-old Norlane man.

Victoria Police officers swooped on several properties in the Geelong region connected to Barwon Prison from 7am, completing searches a short time ago.

Four prison officers have been arrested as part of an ongoing investigation by police and Corrections Victoria which has linked guards to inmates.

PRISON officers accused of running a drug trafficking ring with criminals have been arrested in a series of co-ordinated raids.

Victoria Police officers swooped on several properties in the Geelong region connected to Barwon Prison from 7am, completing searches a short time ago.

The Herald Sun understands four prison officers have been arrested as part of an ongoing investigation by police and Corrections Victoria which has linked guards to inmates.

Barwon Prison, near Geelong, houses the state’s worst convicted criminals, among them influential organised crime figures.

Gangland killer Evangelos Goussis, drug boss Tony Mokbel, and middle-eastern crime gang members are all housed at Barwon Prison, however no identities of inmates connected to today’s raids have been revealed.

Inappropriate relationships between staff and inmates at Corrections Victoria’s jail are considered a major security risk.

Staff at Barwon came under unprecedented levels of scrutiny following the death of  Carl Williams.

More to come …

UPDATE-Gerard Baden-Clay will return to court on September 3 2012


Previous threads can be found using the links below, One being very first and so on…

One (26/04/12) here Two (14/05/12)  here Three (17/05/12) here Four (20/05/2012) here Five  (23/05/12) here Six (26/05/12) here Seven (28/05/12) here Eight (30/0512) here Nine (02/06/12) here Ten (08/06/12) here Eleven (11/06/12) here  Twelve 13/06/12 here Thirteen 17/06/12 here Fourteen 20/06/12 here Fifteen 22/06/12 here Sixteen 24/06/12 here Seventeen 26/06/12 here

A MAGISTRATE said he was “flabbergasted” that police would need four to five months to scour Gerard Baden-Clay’s finances – a process set to delay court proceedings.

The Money trail will take months to unravel

Prosecutor Danny Boyle told Magistrate Chris Callaghan they would be unable to give Baden-Clay’s defence team the full brief of evidence because an investigative accountant would need until mid November to analyse bank accounts and insurance policies.

Baden-Clay, 41, who did not appear today, is charged with murdering his wife Allison on April 19 and dumping her body on the banks of a creek.

An earlier court hearing was told Baden-Clay is $1 million in debt and stood to gain about that from his wife’s life insurance and superannuation policies.

Mr Boyle said police were also waiting on computer and phone examinations, as well as post mortem results.

“The post mortem tests are outstanding … the forensics pathologist was away last week and this week until Wednesday,” he said.

A recent court hearing heard police still do not have a cause of death.

Police have so far taken statements from 330 people and still have another 50 to 100 to go.

“The investigative accountant is still to come,” Mr Boyle said.

“The accountant has indicated that it will be mid November.”

Magistrate Callaghan said he was shocked it could take so long.

“You’re joking, aren’t you,” he said.

“I can’t believe for a minute that it’s going to take five months for an accountant to look into the finances of one person.”

Mr Boyle said the records were “voluminous”.

Magistrate Callaghan ordered that the brief of evidence be handed to the defence by no later than August 20, except for the accountant’s statement.

The matter will return to court on September 3 for a committal mention.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

New technology, the media and criminal trials – Let’s talk about it


Here is an interesting article folks that I found that comes at a time when the media and the internet are colliding with the long-held protocols of the old school legal system of the last century, who needs to catch up with who I wonder?

Where are we headed with blogs like this? the instant twitter commentary from courtrooms, the insatiable thirst for the information, good bad or ugly. You all know I am a believer of  Major Trials being telecast to those who want to and indeed need to watch them. Just like some have an interest in Question Time in Parliament and some do not. make it available, what is there to hide?

By Peter Gregory

July 06 2012

Are we now behind the times?

On an overseas crime website was the personal and criminal history of a man known to the Victorian public.

At the time, he was before the courts on a serious charge. The trial judge had warned jurors not to look up the internet, because they were to return a verdict only on the evidence they saw or heard in the courtroom.

Put simply, the judge’s warning was part of delivering a fair trial. If accused of crime, you are judged by a jury of your peers.

They base their decision on the material presented to them in the courtroom. Almost always, that means no reference to the previous convictions of the person on trial, or neighbourhood gossip about a case, or the wise pronouncements of media commentators.

The legal system’s assumption is that jurors, not being trained as lawyers, will find it harder to put aside prejudicial information. If you were a juror on a rape trial, and learned that the accused person had been convicted (separately) of rape six months earlier, what would you think about this case?

“Guilty,” said one student when this question was posed during a seminar some years ago. That is why jury members are told not to follow media reports, do their own research, or talk to their families about the case. They are also instructed to be wary of social media, like Twitter or Facebook.

“If your family is like mine, everyone will have an expert opinion,” one judge would say at the start of a Supreme Court trial.

“You can blame me. If they ask about the evidence, you can say the judge told you that you are not allowed to discuss it.”

Journalists would get very nervous about their court stories, fearing they might be fined or worse if they revealed information that the courts believed was likely to be prejudicial.

In one case, five media organisations were fined a collective $670,000 after reporting that a man arrested over three New South Wales murders in 1989 had confessed. The reports were likely to interfere with the administration of justice, it was found.

These were simpler times when a big worry for publishers was the potential to mix up the conservative court story written for local audiences with a more comprehensive account prepared for interstate editions.

If the Victorian jury was protected from prejudice, all was well. If a stuff-up occurred, media lawyers were sent to court to apologise.

More than 20 years later, safety and conservatism sound like foreign concepts.

The crime website which featured the Victorian suspect was not the worst by any means. True, its advertisements for criminal-related merchandise, including DVDs, calendars and magazines, was distracting, but his segment was a fairly sober summary of his court appearances, material from interviews and legal debate about his future.

Numerous other websites talk about criminals and killers. Some are moderate and feature court decisions. Others appear to follow the “hang ‘em high” school, practised with or without a trial.

Still wary of the legal process, mainstream media websites monitor or ban comments being made about court-related stories.

Inflammatory remarks can raise difficulties for many institutions which have embraced social media and the internet to engage with the public.

Bond University professor Mark Pearson recently analysed problems with the Queensland Police Facebook site, which was flooded with hard-nosed commentary following a high-profile arrest.
“I fear it will not be long before a savvy defence lawyer seizes the opportunity to use such prejudicial commentary as grounds for appeal, perhaps resulting in a trial being aborted at great public expense or even a verdict quashed,” he told The Australian newspaper.

So, what can the courts do?

Last month, the New South Wales Criminal Court of Appeal allowed a media challenge to court orders that would have forced news websites to remove thousands of archived stories about a conspiracy to murder trial. The Sydney Morning Herald said the court upheld the argument that the orders were futile because “vast swathes of information on the internet are essentially beyond the court’s control”.

“It is something of an irony that the (media organisations)…are, on one view, the only people against whom an order could properly have been made,” the court said in its published judgment.

While NSW law might let prosecuting authorities seek suppression orders over prejudicial material published online by local media, that permission could not validly apply to the world at large.

Suppression orders might cover material on internet sites beyond the control or awareness of local publishers.

Imagine the SMH finding all the international crime websites, and persuading them to take down some of their murder summaries because an Australian prosecutor was worried about them.

A Law Council of Australia committee, of which this writer is a member, outlined some other problems in a submission made to the Federal Government.

The media and communications committee said information could not be effectively censored or removed once it was available online. Material was often republished or cached on other sites. Monitoring archives for past publications would be costly and a significant exercise, and in many cases would have little practical effect, the committee argued.

Removing mainstream material might also bump the relevant information contained on less reputable websites up the search engine list for determined researchers.

“Suppression and non-publication orders that that operate to censor or remove historical reports by mainstream media organisations can lead to (the other) websites being elevated in lists of search results carried out, for instance, on the names of accused persons, and thus perversely increase the risk of prejudice to forthcoming trials,” the committee said.

If censoring the media does not work, the focus returns to juries. Jurors can be fined for looking up the internet during trials, if they decide to ignore judges’ warnings.

On its website, the Judicial College of Victoria has quoted court decisions describing jury members as “robust and responsible”, not “fragile and prone to prejudice”. But it warns that the availability of internet databases posed new problems for protecting jurors from prejudicial information.

Could that mean sequestering the jury – staying at hotels, not at home – for the whole trial, to keep it away from outside influences? Would that happen at all trials, or just the ones that attracted massive media attention?

One of the court decisions suggested keeping juries together during the proceedings would protect the open court principle and avoid prejudice. The accommodation costs in a long hearing, and the associated pressure to avoid mistrials, would be very likely to create their own problems.

What are your thoughts readers?

New technology, the media and criminal trials – Let's talk about it


Here is an interesting article folks that I found that comes at a time when the media and the internet are colliding with the long-held protocols of the old school legal system of the last century, who needs to catch up with who I wonder?

Where are we headed with blogs like this? the instant twitter commentary from courtrooms, the insatiable thirst for the information, good bad or ugly. You all know I am a believer of  Major Trials being telecast to those who want to and indeed need to watch them. Just like some have an interest in Question Time in Parliament and some do not. make it available, what is there to hide?

By Peter Gregory

July 06 2012

Are we now behind the times?

On an overseas crime website was the personal and criminal history of a man known to the Victorian public.

At the time, he was before the courts on a serious charge. The trial judge had warned jurors not to look up the internet, because they were to return a verdict only on the evidence they saw or heard in the courtroom.

Put simply, the judge’s warning was part of delivering a fair trial. If accused of crime, you are judged by a jury of your peers.

They base their decision on the material presented to them in the courtroom. Almost always, that means no reference to the previous convictions of the person on trial, or neighbourhood gossip about a case, or the wise pronouncements of media commentators.

The legal system’s assumption is that jurors, not being trained as lawyers, will find it harder to put aside prejudicial information. If you were a juror on a rape trial, and learned that the accused person had been convicted (separately) of rape six months earlier, what would you think about this case?

“Guilty,” said one student when this question was posed during a seminar some years ago. That is why jury members are told not to follow media reports, do their own research, or talk to their families about the case. They are also instructed to be wary of social media, like Twitter or Facebook.

“If your family is like mine, everyone will have an expert opinion,” one judge would say at the start of a Supreme Court trial.

“You can blame me. If they ask about the evidence, you can say the judge told you that you are not allowed to discuss it.”

Journalists would get very nervous about their court stories, fearing they might be fined or worse if they revealed information that the courts believed was likely to be prejudicial.

In one case, five media organisations were fined a collective $670,000 after reporting that a man arrested over three New South Wales murders in 1989 had confessed. The reports were likely to interfere with the administration of justice, it was found.

These were simpler times when a big worry for publishers was the potential to mix up the conservative court story written for local audiences with a more comprehensive account prepared for interstate editions.

If the Victorian jury was protected from prejudice, all was well. If a stuff-up occurred, media lawyers were sent to court to apologise.

More than 20 years later, safety and conservatism sound like foreign concepts.

The crime website which featured the Victorian suspect was not the worst by any means. True, its advertisements for criminal-related merchandise, including DVDs, calendars and magazines, was distracting, but his segment was a fairly sober summary of his court appearances, material from interviews and legal debate about his future.

Numerous other websites talk about criminals and killers. Some are moderate and feature court decisions. Others appear to follow the “hang ‘em high” school, practised with or without a trial.

Still wary of the legal process, mainstream media websites monitor or ban comments being made about court-related stories.

Inflammatory remarks can raise difficulties for many institutions which have embraced social media and the internet to engage with the public.

Bond University professor Mark Pearson recently analysed problems with the Queensland Police Facebook site, which was flooded with hard-nosed commentary following a high-profile arrest.
“I fear it will not be long before a savvy defence lawyer seizes the opportunity to use such prejudicial commentary as grounds for appeal, perhaps resulting in a trial being aborted at great public expense or even a verdict quashed,” he told The Australian newspaper.

So, what can the courts do?

Last month, the New South Wales Criminal Court of Appeal allowed a media challenge to court orders that would have forced news websites to remove thousands of archived stories about a conspiracy to murder trial. The Sydney Morning Herald said the court upheld the argument that the orders were futile because “vast swathes of information on the internet are essentially beyond the court’s control”.

“It is something of an irony that the (media organisations)…are, on one view, the only people against whom an order could properly have been made,” the court said in its published judgment.

While NSW law might let prosecuting authorities seek suppression orders over prejudicial material published online by local media, that permission could not validly apply to the world at large.

Suppression orders might cover material on internet sites beyond the control or awareness of local publishers.

Imagine the SMH finding all the international crime websites, and persuading them to take down some of their murder summaries because an Australian prosecutor was worried about them.

A Law Council of Australia committee, of which this writer is a member, outlined some other problems in a submission made to the Federal Government.

The media and communications committee said information could not be effectively censored or removed once it was available online. Material was often republished or cached on other sites. Monitoring archives for past publications would be costly and a significant exercise, and in many cases would have little practical effect, the committee argued.

Removing mainstream material might also bump the relevant information contained on less reputable websites up the search engine list for determined researchers.

“Suppression and non-publication orders that that operate to censor or remove historical reports by mainstream media organisations can lead to (the other) websites being elevated in lists of search results carried out, for instance, on the names of accused persons, and thus perversely increase the risk of prejudice to forthcoming trials,” the committee said.

If censoring the media does not work, the focus returns to juries. Jurors can be fined for looking up the internet during trials, if they decide to ignore judges’ warnings.

On its website, the Judicial College of Victoria has quoted court decisions describing jury members as “robust and responsible”, not “fragile and prone to prejudice”. But it warns that the availability of internet databases posed new problems for protecting jurors from prejudicial information.

Could that mean sequestering the jury – staying at hotels, not at home – for the whole trial, to keep it away from outside influences? Would that happen at all trials, or just the ones that attracted massive media attention?

One of the court decisions suggested keeping juries together during the proceedings would protect the open court principle and avoid prejudice. The accommodation costs in a long hearing, and the associated pressure to avoid mistrials, would be very likely to create their own problems.

What are your thoughts readers?

4 Weeks since Allison Baden-Clay vanished, later found murdered…UPDATES


This Crime has had massive Interest and the previous threads became quite large and slow to load for some people, as they contain large amounts of photos and video. Take your time to have a look through them.You better grab a coffee or 4.They will open in another window when you click on them.

Original First Post (26/04/12) here

Second updated Post (14/05/12)  here

Overnight Update 2.20am

I hear a breakthrough was made overnight, and you might say the pressure has become too much for some…………………

Also some significant words from the Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson earlier folks, I think the snowball is rolling and getting massive…Damn its 2.10 am and I won’t be able to sleep, I hope some cowardly, gutless, weak, conniving, filthy, dishonest, murdering folk get taken away in the morning. They will cheer in the streets if it does. Go you Queenslanders…

ALLISON Baden-Clay was an innocent whose tragic story captured the hearts of Queenslanders, Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson said yesterday.

As police continue to scour for clues in the hunt for Mrs Baden-Clay’s killer, the commissioner said her heartbreaking death had struck a chord with the public.

“This is clearly a case with significant public interest.”

Mr Atkinson said the intense public interest in Mrs Baden-Clay could be due to the fact that she was a true victim.

“It is dreadful that a mother of three young children has been taken from them,” he said.

“I think in this case there is an innocence about Allison Baden-Clay, there is something that triggers the public.

Allison Baden-Clay, Daniel Morcombe, Sian Kingi, Anita Cobby – I think because people relate to the victim .”

Mrs Baden-Clay was reported missing about 7am and just a few hours later her suburb was overrun with police.

It was the start of a frantic search involving hundreds of police and State Emergency Services volunteers.

A passing canoeist eventually spotted her body under the Kholo Creek bridge.

Mr Atkinson said police responded swiftly and in large numbers for a reason.

“There were alarm bells from the moment she was reported missing,” he said.

Mr Atkinson said some cases needed immediate attention.

“As soon as he (her husband) reported her missing there was concern,” he said. “When it comes to women and children, if you don’t move quickly you might miss something.”

The Police Commissioner chose to not even use Coward Clays name…

Sadly tomorrow already marks four weeks of heartache since mother-of-three Allison Baden-Clay disappeared but the floral tributes being laid at her Brookfield home and at the Kholo Creek Bridge near where her body was found only grow in number.

Flowers are left as a sign of respect on the bridge above where Allison’s body was discovered.

More than 20 detectives yesterday continued their methodical hunt to find Mrs Baden-Clay’s killer from a major incident room first erected at the Indooroopilly Police Station almost a month ago, shortly after the 43-year-old was reported missing by her husband at 7.30am on Friday, April 20, 2012.

It is understood detectives are scouring hundreds of witness statements and are still interviewing widely as they wait for final toxicology results.

Police earlier this week declared that members of the Brookfield community should not fear for their safety, adding they believed Mrs Baden-Clay’s killer was someone she knew.

The community celebrates the annual Brookfield Show this weekend.

Residents of Lintrose Tce at Karalee, on the opposite side of the Brisbane River to where Mrs Baden-Clay’s body was found, said yesterday that they only wished they had heard something that could help the police investigation.

click on IMAGE to enlarge

Residents of Lintrose Tce at Karalee, on the opposite side of the Brisbane River to where Mrs Baden-Clay’s body was found, said yesterday that they only wished they had heard something that could help the police investigation. (CLICK TO ENLARGE)

Many of the properties on the street front the river and have a direct view of the mud bank where Mrs Baden-Clay’s body was discovered.

One neighbour denied rumours that residents living in the area heard a “splash” in the days after Mrs Baden-Clay was reported missing.

“You can hear the traffic on the bridge, definitely, and you probably could hear something if it was quiet but no one along here did,” he said. “It’s awful. I wish we could (help).”

Anyone with information which could help the police investigation should call Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

The 2 known people to have been questioned by police happen to be work colleagues, they both have sought legal representation early in the piece…

Does this intersection hold the clue to the Baden-Clay murder?

CLICK TO SEE MUCH LARGER IMAGE OF MAP

Moggill Road and Brookfield Road, Kenmore QLD (Click to enlarge)

The police are rightly playing their cards close to their chest in the Allison Baden-Clay murder investigation.

Roundabout approach

Did the killer drive through the Kenmore roundabout at the corner of Moggill Road and Brookfield Road on the night of the murder between 11.30pm on Thursday 19 April 2012 and 4:00am the following morning?

Was Allison still alive in the killer’s car at that time or did she die later?

Kenmore Roundabout taken from CCTV

Even if the killer did traverse this route, the camera may not have captured that exact moment.  Take a look at the above image from the position of the Department of Transport and Main Roads CCTV traffic camera at that location.  The camera points east towards Indooroopilly, meaning that a vehicle turning right from Brookfield Road into Moggill Road would be in view of the camera for a maximum of just over 1 second., perhaps a fraction less.

With the camera updating public images only every 60 seconds, the chances of capturing a particular vehicle at any specific time of the day or night would be at long odds.  A vehicle on Moggill Road travelling eastbound from the direction of Moggill, turning left into Brookfield Road would not be captured at all.

This camera may hold the key clue to the murder

Equally, the killer may have avoided being captured on this CCTV installation by the barest of seconds.

Either way, the Brisbane community rumour mill is now in feverish overdrive that the police will wrap up this case very soon with residents in homes, workplaces and street corners openly opinionating their views.

Like the unsolved Betty Shanks murder in Brisbane in 1952, the Baden-Clay murder will be etched into the minds of the people of Brisbane for generations to come.

The on-going tangled web of circumstantial evidence will slowly but surely point to the killer whose days of freedom can probably be counted on a single hand.

It is not too hard to predict what will happen from here.

 The eventual suspect in the murder of Allison Baden-Clay is likely to be taken for serious questioning to the Indooroopilly Police Station on Moggill Road opposite Indooroopily Shopping Centre and, subject to a successful prosecution for murder in the Supreme Court, remain incarcerated from that moment for the next 20 years or even longer, given the gravity of this horrendous crime.

D-Day approaching for killer

With a team of more than 20 detectives moving forward with their investigation and final post mortem tests becoming available, “D”-Day is about to arrive for Allison Baden-Clay’s killer.

Police have already publicly announced that she may have known her killer.

The team of homicide detectives is playing a masterful game to flush out the killer, drip feeding small tidbits of key information to the media which must be driving the killer insane.

With each small piece of carefully released information, such as the 2 cars seen at Kholo Creek where the body was found, the killer must be frantic to speak to any accomplices to refine their story – something near impossible with police wire taps and electronic surveillance certain to be in place.

The time must be just about up for this killer.

The arrest and subsequent trial is likely to be one of the most-sensational ever witnessed in Queensland.

<

Burqa woman beats law- This is a disgrace to all law abiding Australians


What a ridiculous situation this is. It makes a joke of the laws of this land and makes a mockery of the police trying to do their jobs. Does anyone realise what a precedent this will set as an EXCUSE for the muslim community that chose to wear these things? This must be appealed to the highest court in our land regardless of cost to protect this country from turning into a country who fold weak at the knees and put ones religion before the law.The original story on my blog is here…http://aussiecriminals.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/carnita-matthews-caught-out-using-playing-the-racist-game/

THE Muslim woman Carnita Matthews accused of lying about police trying to tear her burqa off has avoided jail – because her identity could not be proven.

Carnita Matthews (in burqa) appeared at The Downing Centre Court

Carnita Matthews, 47, from Woodbine, in Sydney‘s southwest, had been sentenced to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement that a policeman tried to forcibly remove her burqa because he was a racist.

But judge Clive Jeffreys said yesterday he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mrs Matthews who made the racism accusation because the person who complained to police was wearing a burqa at the time.

The absurdity of the law is that, to reach the level of proof of identity to make the case, Mrs Matthews would have been required to identify herself by lifting her burqa at the police station – what started the uproar in the first place.

More than a dozen Muslim supporters linked arms and began chanting “Allah Akbar” as they stormed out of Downing Centre Court with Mrs Matthews concealed behind them.

Related Coverage

Tempers rose and they began jostling with police after several members of the group attacked cameramen.

It marked a stark difference from their behaviour minutes earlier, when they had quietly assembled outside the lifts for prayer shortly after the judge’s decision.

Mrs Matthew’s lawyer Stephen Hopper defended their actions saying: “They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them.”

Judge Jeffreys said yesterday that even if Mrs Matthews had made the complaint, he could not be sure she knew it was a “false” statement.

“I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she made the complaint,” he said.

“Even if I was satisfied that she made the complaint, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was knowingly false.”

Mrs Matthews made the claim in her court appearance last year, saying police could not prove it was her behind the burqa when the complaint was handed in to police. The local magistrate rejected it.

The case had lit up the religious debate when a magistrate found Mrs Matthews had deliberately made false complaints that Sergeant Paul Kearney was racist and had attempted to tear her burqa off her face when she declined to remove it on request.

She was pulled over for a random breath test last June, and accused Sgt Kearney of racism only after he booked her for failing to properly display her P-plates.

The incident was captured on a patrol car video camera and helped clear Sgt Kearney, prompting calls for all police cars to carry in-built cameras to avoid false claims.

“I’ve got my P-plates on my car … there was nothing wrong with how they were displayed,” Mrs Matthews says on the video.

“You look at me and see me wearing this and you couldn’t handle it. All cops are racist.”

She then threatens, “100 per cent”, that she will take the matter to court and fight the charge.

Here is what people are saying this morning about this topic…

  • Mark Posted at 11:05 PM June 20, 2011

Islam is not a race it is a religion which is a choice in this country.

Comment 1 of 129

  • rob the rattler of Melbourne Posted at 11:26 PM June 20, 2011

Maybe we should let off all the armed robbers who wear masks to commit crime. The legal system is laughable…

Comment 2 of 129

  • daniel hewitt of melbourne Posted at 11:31 PM June 20, 2011

How much longer before common sense and equality for woman return and we ban the horror of the burqa for good in Australia. It has no place in a modern democarcy

Comment 3 of 129

  • Gozza of Seen it all before Posted at 11:32 PM June 20, 2011

Welcome to your future Australia.

Comment 4 of 129

  • Jan of Vic Posted at 11:36 PM June 20, 2011

THE VERY REASON THEY SHOULD BE BANNED !

Comment 5 of 129

  • TrueBlue of melbourne Posted at 11:37 PM June 20, 2011

what have the camera men got to do with it. Why did the attack the tv crews? why wern’t they arrested? And why was she driving the car with out a male chaperone? These radicals realy have a chip on thier shoulders which is becoming more and more a public concern.

Comment 6 of 129

  • EPM of mel Posted at 11:43 PM June 20, 2011

Muslim supporters began jostling with police and their lawyer says “They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them”.

Comment 7 of 129

  • Hymie of Warragul Posted at 11:44 PM June 20, 2011

The beginning of the end for Western culture and Christian legal doctrine in Australia. Get ready for the Storm Australia, it’s coming.

Comment 8 of 129

  • Mohammed of Australia Posted at 11:50 PM June 20, 2011

Ban the Burka so we don’t have to put up with this rubbish!

Comment 9 of 129

  • Ali-Hughes Posted at 11:50 PM June 20, 2011

Mrs Matthews has proven the need for society at large to prove identity beyond any doubt by her own challenge to charges against her. Hiding behind religion, and the concealment of a burka shows it has no place in a democratic society. She wants to live in the middle ages where women are chattle and dominated by repressive male zealots then she needs to move to parts of the middle east where such practices are considered normal. In the real world people do not walk in public wearing masks. We’re tired of being bombarded by protests and violence shielded behind a “cultural beliefs” labels and false cries of racism. We are a tolerant community but people like you have continuously pushed the boundries like a spoiled brats and we’re tired of your tantrums. We are a civilized society and it’s time to demand conformation from these fanatics or give them a one-way ticket to a place they choose and slam the door shut.

Comment 10 of 129

  • steve Posted at 11:50 PM June 20, 2011

this is exactly why the burka must be banned.

Comment 11 of 129

  • John of Colac Posted at 11:54 PM June 20, 2011

Quite simple really we dont let people walk around with a beanie pulled down to cover their face so stop the racism and ban the burka.

Comment 12 of 129

  • Shut the Gate NOW of LaLaLand Posted at 11:55 PM June 20, 2011

All the more reason to get rid of the burka in Australia NOW!!

Comment 13 of 129

  • Chris of Melbourne Posted at 11:59 PM June 20, 2011

It seems the only racist here is her.

Comment 14 of 129

  • ROFLMAO Posted at 12:04 AM Today

LOLsss, mister lawyer – yes, the guy in front in the pic looks very happy!!!

Comment 15 of 129

  • vin ienco Posted at 12:10 AM Today

shield ? Paul Kent: Present the fact, the Muslims clashed with police

Comment 16 of 129

  • Jim Watson Posted at 12:12 AM Today

If the police couldn’t identify her because she was wearing a burqa then this is yet another clear argument in favour of banning the burqa. Time to free Muslim women from oppression and address the security issues arising.

Comment 17 of 129

  • joe from the bush Posted at 12:18 AM Today

this is only going to become more common place in the future with the culture clashes riseing and violence increasing,they want muslim schools,they tried for sharia law (thats not finished yet)they want the tax payer to pay for more halal butchers to be trained to torture animals before they are slaughtered, and trust me the list will go on,did the greek,italian,german,english,scot,irish or any other group want to change society when they here,not likely but this new wave of migrants want and probably will alter the face of australia forever and the do-gooders will keep on cedeing rights to these people until it’s to late so let me take this opportunity to say to all the do-gooders “see the guy with the raised fist and the angry expression,imagine how he will react if they had lost!!!”don’t say you weren’t warned,o.k.because it’s a moral certanty that the do-gooders will be the first to scream their heads off when the brown stuff hits the fan any where within a mile of them.the boat invaders being settled by gillard will bite the hand that welcomes them,mark my words,it’s happening in europe and it will happen here,gee thanks jooliar,thanks for nothing!!!…

Comment 18 of 129

  • The Mask of Melbourne Posted at 12:31 AM Today

The burka is a wall, which separates a face from mainstream Australia. Why are these faces hiding? Come on, we want to see you smile!!!

Comment 19 of 129

  • Mr. Possum of Melbourne Posted at 12:35 AM Today

I’m not anti-Muslim but I oppose Burqa in the street. This case is example for prosecuting on other Burqa involving crime like Bank robber who wears Burqa when he committed crime. I have no doubt banning Burqa in the street and public place is best interest of all Australian peoples.

Comment 20 of 129

  • Send em home of Melbourne Posted at 12:39 AM Today

Send em home

Comment 21 of 129

  • Chris fowler Posted at 12:39 AM Today

Why is everyone so afraid to challenge muslims It is not racist to have an opinion about another religion this is what free speech is You have forgotten that

Comment 22 of 129

  • John of Sydney of Sydney Posted at 12:43 AM Today

So next time a terrorist murders an Aussie while wearing a burka will also be free on appeal because the judges will not be sure who is behind the veil, too????

Comment 23 of 129

  • Whistleblower of Melbourne Posted at 12:45 AM Today

This is what we get for letting these mindless morons into country. Radical Islamists are a curse and we don’t need any more of of them. Send them and their bloody burquas back to where they come from. We do not need radical Islamists in our country. In their countries we wouldn’t get a look in if we tried these antics.

Comment 24 of 129

  • leedsiy of Mebourne Posted at 12:47 AM Today

This is absolute nonsense. Since when do we excuse aggressive and inappropriate behaviour because “They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them”. Stephen Hopper should take a reality check. Why do we excuse their bad behaviour here? If it is because they are used to bullying and getting their own way in their own country by vicious and unprincipled behaviour, should we allow it in Australia. I want people to behave in a culturally appropriate and lawful manner here. We are Australians and respect Australian Law. So should they and so should she have. Absolutely rude woman with issues.

Comment 25 of 129

  • LJR Posted at 1:04 AM Today

This is a disgrace, and a perfect example of why the burka does not fit with our culture! They wonder why they face prejudice, yet they carry on like a pack of animals. What a joke!

Comment 26 of 129

  • kastha of dandenong Posted at 1:07 AM Today

This is the faces of future Australians….(under Labor Govt)…be afraid…be very afraid

Comment 27 of 129

  • Faceless Posted at 1:13 AM Today

Simple. Ban the thing called burka

Comment 28 of 129

  • N Markulin of Canberra Posted at 1:16 AM Today

Ah, now wait for the explosion of crime committed by Burqa clad offenders. This dear Judge has just given the criminal element the ‘keys’ to the perfect crime. Wear a burqa, even if your caught, don’t let them view your face, and your home free. And what a truly human way to express ones joy and happiness, by attacking citizens and police! Happiness + violence = culturally appropriate! Hold the horses, there is another defence to a criminal act. Go out and beat somebody senseless, or worse, then claim the defence that it is ‘culturally appropriate’ to do so. I was only happy! What a marvellous Australia we are creating for our children. But then, I see no condemnation of the court result in this article, nor any out cry from the journalist about the actions of this persons supporters. Sgt Kearney got what he deserved right! Just cant trust those sneaky Police can you! Why on earth should they be out there enforcing the law, harassing burqa clad women, being racist and interfering with peoples ‘happy’ cultural celebrations. Really, what are the police thinking these days!.

Comment 29 of 129

  • leigh of adelaide Posted at 1:34 AM Today

Yeah thats it, play the usual racist card.

Comment 30 of 129

  • Candy of Melbourne Posted at 1:37 AM Today

They attack police and tv cameramen and this is ok as they “are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them”. If they want to live in a culture like that, why did they come to Australia as that is not culturally appropriate here by any standard.

Comment 31 of 129

  • JBob of Oakleigh Posted at 1:38 AM Today

Outrageous, covering yourself up, claiming prejudice whilst displaying a flagrant lack of regard for the truth and getting away with it! How will it ever be possible to prove crimes against burka wearing members of society if we can never prove who they are? Please dont claim prejudice to avoid following the laws all Australians are expected to follow. I previously believed in respecting religious traditions but this behaviour shows how such traditions can be used to manipulate situations unfairly.

Comment 32 of 129

  • Howard of Melbourne Posted at 1:40 AM Today

Awesome, so I’ll start wearing burkas now. So i can get away with almost of everything! What a joke! And what gives these people any right to protest I’n our streets. Go bback to the middle east, we don’t want you here

Comment 33 of 129

  • truther of United Kingdom Posted at 1:41 AM Today

“More than a dozen Muslim supporters linked arms and began chanting “Allah Uh Ahkbar”,and “All cops are racist.” It begins people……

Comment 34 of 129

  • Get it off of Melbourne Posted at 1:43 AM Today

Fine, that only proves one thing to me…the legal right to wear a burka has got to go…forthwith.

Comment 35 of 129

  • The law must change! of Melbourne Posted at 1:44 AM Today

What are the supporters supporting? The fact that a guilty person walked free? …or the fact that they know they can commit crimes whilst hiding their identity behind a burka? Yeah, right. That’s all we need.

Comment 36 of 129

  • Darren Buchanan Posted at 1:47 AM Today

I am afraid France is right. It is time to BAN THE BURKA!!! If the legal system cannot identify a person because of their unwillingness to remove their facial covering then society should ban it and outlaw it altogether. Hell, even motorcycle riders and motorcycle club members take their face helmets off when asked to identify themselves. BAN THE BURKA…..BAN THE BURKA…..BAN THE BURKA. It is time for all Australians from all cultures to come together as one.

Comment 37 of 129

  • Jacqui of Melbourne Posted at 1:49 AM Today

this is why the burka should be banned. I cant wear a helmet into a bank but they can wear their burka. I never had a problem until I heard about this case where they are using the burka to get away with breaking the law. Shame. Shame. Shame,

Comment 38 of 129

  • Grid of Qld Posted at 1:55 AM Today

Good reason to ban the burka

Comment 39 of 129

  • Ralph Posted at 1:57 AM Today

Attacking people in the street is “culturally appropriate to them”? That would be fine if it happened in the Middle East, but as we are in Australia perhaps we should be more concerned with what is “culturally appropriate” for us.

Comment 40 of 129

  • fed up of reality Posted at 2:09 AM Today

so now anytime anyone wants to do something illegal, they should just wear a burka…

Comment 41 of 129

  • Umberto Torazzi Posted at 2:11 AM Today

One rule for the Muslims, one for the christians. You gotta luve Australiastan.

Comment 42 of 129

  • wiz of Melbourne Posted at 2:16 AM Today

This is going to be the ugly face of this country down the track …………. we have made a huge mistake with multiculturalism, look at the anger, hatred in this mans face. And look how they treat the women in their culture, hidden from head to toe and walking behind them like second class people. Mark my words, big big trouble ahead in this country

Comment 43 of 129

  • Paul of melbourne Posted at 2:18 AM Today

wow….just wow, all cops are racist, OK i can make an equally ignorant remark, all Muslims are violent… do these people even realise that this will bring on stricter measures to people who wear burka’s in public to avoid this situation in the future?.

Comment 44 of 129

  • The Mechanic of Melbourne Posted at 2:22 AM Today

The above photos and story speak volumes of how quickly Australia is going down the toilet . Motorcyclists , who constantly get beaten up in the public press , have since the 1970s willing abided by Australian Law on covering ones face whilst in a public place and removed their helmets for the security of all , whilst a Muslim Woman is allowed to cover her face . Australia executed the last full faced covered person in a public place accused of breaking a law whilst wearing a full face covering , Ned Kelly . It is racism against everyday Australians for this rubbish to continue . If you a migrant and you do not like living in one of the freest democracys in the entire World , simple . Leave now . Personally , I would respect you more for such a courageous decision .

Comment 45 of 129

  • nh jan of Brisbane Posted at 2:23 AM Today

Look at the anger in that picture. Australia tread carefully, there is a muslim invasion of stealth taking place. Why do Muslim women think they are above the law and do not have to identify themselves by hiding behind a birka? Ban the stupid things NOW.

Comment 46 of 129

  • Mick of Albury Posted at 2:30 AM Today

I oticed there’s not one other woman there supporting Carnita. Is that cause their not allowed out of the house?

Comment 47 of 129

  • Peter Posted at 2:39 AM Today

WHAT A JOKE. Just ban the burka already.

Comment 48 of 129

  • Ron of Melbourne Posted at 2:55 AM Today

Time to ban the burka. It is not appropriate in Australia. The police have the right to instruct the woman to raise her hood so they can idenitfy her. They are simply doing their job made impossible by the wearing of a burka

Comment 49 of 129

  • Evan Posted at 3:02 AM Today

No one is above the law. To lie about something or someone; and then to hide behind a mask (religious or otherwise) is cowardly and shows that you have no self respect. In court all are equal and everyone must show their face. This woman has been used by others to push their agendas and they are taking advantage of so called ‘cultural sensitivities’ to mislead justice. Funny; people who rob, steal, assault also mask their faces to try to avoid capture and responsibility.

Comment 50 of 129

  • Samantha of Mentone Posted at 3:15 AM Today

There goes the Australia we once had; get ready for more people playing the racism card and expecting special attention from our softly, softly approach.

Comment 51 of 129

  • Show respect of Melbourne Posted at 3:23 AM Today

This judgment is disgusting. How dare they come into this country and demonstrate in this way with total disgust to the law of the land. Can anyone go to one of their hopelessly intolerant countries and behave in this manner. Come on Australia do not allow this to continue.

Comment 52 of 129

  • Dale Dann of Sunbury Posted at 3:42 AM Today

Look at the hate in these people, get rid of them KNOW.

Comment 53 of 129

  • Jason of TOORAK Posted at 3:44 AM Today

A small glimpse of the Australia’s future with so called Moderate Muslims seeking a so called new Life in this country. Just wait until they have the numbers and Australia will see what Israel and the Chinese in Indonesia have to put up with when the Muslims reach significant percentage of the population. They are an actively racist and intolerant towards all non Muslims. Just look at the hate on these faces.

Comment 54 of 129

  • Strange of Perth Posted at 3:49 AM Today

Lets all wear Burkas so we can escape justice in Australia. The Muslim’s are on a winner here….and we all thought the Burka just had a religious meaning…HA…What a joke.

Comment 55 of 129

  • Ray Cullen Posted at 3:49 AM Today

Great next time I have to front a Court I’ll wear a burka!

Comment 56 of 129

  • john wilson Posted at 4:11 AM Today

this burka nonsense is another examble of the mainstream of our country having to assimilate to the needs of a strident minority, and in this case the confusion of identity is at the very reason they should not be be worn it seems like france is the only country with the backbone to say no to these people but as usual in our country it seems the tail wags the dog.

Comment 57 of 129

  • Joc68 of Gold Coast Posted at 4:13 AM Today

We rest our case – this is exactly why burkas should be BANNED!

Comment 58 of 129

  • bbb Posted at 4:14 AM Today

What ever country you move to or live in, it is your duty as a citizen to follow the law. If the law says no Burka, don´t wear the bloody thing, religion or no religion. Lock her back up, why do we always go soft when it comes to religion?

Comment 59 of 129

  • Leigh of Melbourne Posted at 4:17 AM Today

And now we can see why the Burka needs to be banned. By useing it as a means to circumvent the law it is no longer a religious agument but a clear matter of public safty.

Comment 60 of 129

  • Dave of Deans Marsh Posted at 4:17 AM Today

Ban the niqab in public!If she was wearing one when pulled over,the police have been extremely lenient.

Comment 61 of 129

  • Steve Canty Posted at 4:37 AM Today

Want to see real racism? Try living in a Muslim majority country as a non-Muslim! They will give you no rights whatsoever and will not apologize for it.

Comment 62 of 129

  • Jell of East Brunswick Posted at 4:47 AM Today

So let me get this straight: Police are racist if they ask for Muslim women to identify themselves properly, yet if they don’t enforce the identity request then charges are dropped through lack of proof? I’m sorry, i’m all for equality and acceptance but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. The law is still the law, unless something has changed here that i’m unaware of, and no one should be exempt from that. After all, it is ‘equal’ standing we’re all looking for isn’t it?

Comment 63 of 129

  • Madeline Archi- of Heidelberg Posted at 4:51 AM Today

Once more the system BOWS to these ‘persons’. Why don’t you journos print what the rest of us believe and write? You fear this 1% of the population who WANT everything THEIR way or NO way!

Comment 64 of 129

  • karl Posted at 4:57 AM Today

and that is why we need to see faces….this is so BS…

Comment 65 of 129

  • Tom of Melbourne Posted at 5:00 AM Today

“Ban the BurKa”…..I thought these people came here for a “Better Life”.and our “Centrelink ” ..not to bring their crap with them.

Comment 66 of 129

  • All for one and one for all. Posted at 5:02 AM Today

Is this picture what the do-gooders refer to as multi culturism. It now seems that Australia has caught up with the rest of the world. Lady Justice is certainly Blind.

Comment 67 of 129

  • David Woodham of Hillside Posted at 5:05 AM Today

multiculturism at its’ bet…NOT!!

Comment 68 of 129

  • Kooiman of the outback Posted at 5:18 AM Today

here we have the reason for banning fully veiled women…we need to be able to id people in public. The violence demonstrated by her supporters and the cries of allah akbar send shivers through my spine and reminds me of why we prefer to live in a secular society. I am sick of religomaniacs running around being intolerant.

Comment 69 of 129

  • Spin Cycle of Melbourne Posted at 5:24 AM Today

“They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them” – What about appropriate to Aussies?? Oh that’s right, we are infidels. Not long to go now.

Comment 70 of 129

  • bobby from gppsland of gippsland Posted at 5:26 AM Today

these people are trouble makers deport them now

Comment 71 of 129

  • Philip pouponneau of Clayton Posted at 5:28 AM Today

That young lady obviously has never experienced true racism let’s hope that she never does.

Comment 72 of 129

  • WELL DONE Posted at 5:38 AM Today

Isn’t that the idea. They can get away with murder because they wear a burka. Ban them now. How is anyone going to tell whether it’s male or female under that thing.

Comment 73 of 129

  • Elwood of Seattle Posted at 5:40 AM Today

That worked this time, and now we all know how the game is to be played. But what is with the “Allah Uh Ahkbar” thing? How does that have anything to do with things, other than to prove that they don’t accept Australian Law?

Comment 74 of 129

  • Dragonfly Posted at 5:40 AM Today

This is multiculturalism at its startling best! Our legislators need to display the courage necessary to enact laws, without fear or favor, for the wellbeing of Australian citizens in general. Then our police need to be able to enforce those laws, again, without fear or favor.

Comment 75 of 129

  • Elwood of Seattle Posted at 5:41 AM Today

They all seem very upset and angry. Maybe they should move back to where they come from, and remove themselves from the burden of Western life.

Comment 76 of 129

  • Peter of Melbourne Posted at 5:43 AM Today

Troublemakers!

Comment 77 of 129

  • Steve of Melton West Posted at 5:45 AM Today

That does it for me then. No burkas. As for Mrs Matthew’s lawyer Stephen Hopper defending them, saying: “They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them”, NO – NOT culturally appropriate! We live by the rule of law and that does not permit attacking camera crews and behaving like bloody savages.

Comment 78 of 129

  • james Cleary of USA Posted at 5:46 AM Today

Quote;” “They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them”.End quote. It is amazing this statment can be used to identify these people, yet if Australians were to use the same statement we would be called racist! It should be made clear to these people prior to being allowed in the country that it is “culturally appropriate” that they be asked to remove the Burka when required. I’m sorry, but when it comes to matter like this then i am a racist. These people will use every excuse to use the race card. They will never be happy until they have control of the system. They are full of hate and as such will never fit into another society.

Comment 79 of 129

  • Craig Posted at 5:50 AM Today

All cops are racist…… Hmmmm… Racism was bought into this country by people like you.

Comment 80 of 129

  • Country Boy of King Herod’s Winter Palace Posted at 5:51 AM Today

Should read “Joke Clive Jeffreys said he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt…..” Tsk, tsk.

Comment 81 of 129

  • MC of Melbourne Posted at 5:51 AM Today

And so it begins…..

Comment 82 of 129

  • George of Brookfield Posted at 5:52 AM Today

So that’s how the religion of peace sets out to narrow the divide between the westerners and themselves, acting inappropiately outside of court. I wonder how a non-muslim would go, if he acted in such arrogance in an arab state?

Comment 83 of 129

  • A realist of Heidelberg Posted at 5:55 AM Today

This is not a religion that Australia needs.

Comment 84 of 129

  • sick of it… of melbourne Posted at 5:56 AM Today

im glad their lawyer is happy for them to express their views in a ‘way that is culturally appropriate to them’. maybe he should head back home WITH them and see what else they do to each other that is ‘culturally appropriate to them’. im pretty certain he might change his ridiculous lawyer way of thinking. this only proves to me that these people will try anything to prove that australians are racist, when it is actually themselves that are causing the problem. if we are all so racist, why the hell dont these people head back to where they came from. would be better for everyone.

Comment 85 of 129

  • Country Boy of King Herod’s Winter Palace Posted at 5:57 AM Today

Does “Allah Uh Ahkbar” chanted by these medievalists, mean “Soft Left judges are great”?

Comment 86 of 129

  • Peter of Seabrook Posted at 5:58 AM Today

Horrible people like this create tension all over the world. The same problems have been evident in Europe leading to major clashes with authorities and changes to their laws. This has nothing to do with racism by police but everything to do with the latent racism of their culture. Linking arms and chanting while clashing with those in their way is pure provication. Many police forces in the world, including the middle east, would have responded harshly.

Comment 87 of 129

  • Joe Koops of mornington Posted at 6:00 AM Today

You show images of Muslim men fighting for their womens’ rights. How contradictory when they treat their women so poorly.

Comment 88 of 129

  • Rob of Vic Posted at 6:02 AM Today

So racism is hating clothes and religion now?

Comment 89 of 129

  • john good Posted at 6:03 AM Today

Exactly the reason they should be banned !!!

Comment 90 of 129

  • Paul of Perth WA Posted at 6:06 AM Today

Welcome to Multiculturalism Australia 2011

Comment 91 of 129

  • Tarquin of The Toorak Palace Posted at 6:06 AM Today

The photo certainly shows a lovely happy-go-lucky group of aussies pleased that their mate has been released from prison. I really do like how multiculturism brings out the best in people.

Comment 92 of 129

  • Luke of Ormond Posted at 6:07 AM Today

A violent reaction and it is defended by saying “They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them”. I don’t care what is “culturally appropropriate to them”, we have laws in this country that make it what it is. This is inexcusable, whether it is soccer hooligans, drunks on the streets, or anyone, such behaviour and disregard for the authority of police should not be tolerated. They should be ashamed. I wonder how many of them were born overseas and came here because of the future Australia can offer to them and their children…great way to show gratitude. As for the judgement, well, all you need now to get away with making false claims to police is wear a burkha…what’s this country coming to?!

Comment 93 of 129

  • Alex of Townsville Posted at 6:09 AM Today

This is an absolute disgrace, an example of the racist banner being used to avoid your resposibilities. Regardless of religous conviction all people are required to identify themselves at all times when requested by authorities, failure to do so should result in immediate incarceration. Personally I believe the burqa should be banned in Australia as ther is no practical need for it and those using it have something to hide. If I wore one and refused to identify myself I would be arrested and jailed because I am proudly non muslim.

Comment 94 of 129

  • Go figure Posted at 6:09 AM Today

I hate the direction Australia is taking. The very fabric of our society slowly disintegrating under the weight of being dictated to by minority groups tearing us apart.

Comment 95 of 129

  • mark of MT Martha Posted at 6:09 AM Today

so now there is a precedent if a person wearing a burka robs a bank or shoots someone they will have a solid defence. This political correctness bull has got to stop.

Comment 96 of 129

  • k of melbourne of melbourne Posted at 6:10 AM Today

so i guess the government has two sets of laws , wake up australia if anyone else had done this they would be charged. Go the the middle east and then see what would happen if we dont accept there laws we would get our head sliced off.

Comment 97 of 129

  • Helmut Schmidt of Skye Posted at 6:12 AM Today

An other reason to ban burka’s

Comment 98 of 129

  • Barry true Aussie of Brisbane Posted at 6:14 AM Today

Another lying moslum goes free, as every one saw when they left the court, all un-employed radicles.. there will be blood on our streets within 5 years, as the she will be right Australian attitude, will go, and lets fight to get our nation back rises.

Comment 99 of 129

  • Big Dave of knoxfield Posted at 6:15 AM Today

So Mr Hopper thinks it is culturally appropriate for muslims to attack people when celebrating.How many were charged with assault or would that be racist.

Comment 100 of 129

Paedophile Clifford John Frith too old for jail? rubbish


This dirty old sick Paedophile Clifford John Frith is trying to get out of going to jail because he is OLD! Can you believe it, he got away with his crimes for years, lives in a beach front mansion and wants home detention…Well I say stuff that, I do not care if he is 19 or a 109, he deserves jail and must go to jail.What does this tell us as a society if he doesn’t.

It is ok to commit crimes if you are old, because they will not jail me? Or is it because he was an artist? Or rich? He has to go to jail , NO IFS BUTTS OR otherwise. well he might find some butts in jail, old sicko!

 

Prosecutors have asked Adelaide’s District Court to jail an elderly paedophile for his crimes and not show leniency because of the man’s age.

Paedophile Clifford John Frith too old for jail? rubbish

Clifford John Frith, 86, who rose to fame as an artist in the 1970s, was found guilty of sexually abusing two young girls in Adelaide more than 20 years ago.

Defence lawyers told the court that Frith is now a frail and ill old man and would suffer unduly if he was jailed for his crimes. That is what jail is for, do the crime do the time old man!

They said Frith, who lives in a beachfront mansion, should instead be placed on home detention. Home detention in his beach-front mansion? Stuff that, sell his house while he is jail and give the money to his victims sounds fair to me.

Prosecutor Peter Longson said submissions alleging Frith would suffer unduly in jail because of his fragile mental state should not persuade the judge to be lenient.

“Of course Mr Firth is depressed. If he wasn’t depressed there would be something wrong with him,” he said.

“He is no different from anyone else who has to sit in the dock and doesn’t know what their fate is.” Spot on

“He’s ended up in this situation of his own doing, and he doesn’t want to spend a day in Yatala, that is understandable that would make anyone depressed.”

Mr Longson said although Frith pleaded guilty to sex charges relating to the second victim, he only did so because the Judge made factual findings against him in the first case.

“It’s almost a tragedy that Mr Firth’s pride is simply preventing him from admitting his conduct,” he said.

“He’s effectively saying ‘I only pleaded guilty because I have had enough of court and I wanted it all to stop, but I didn’t do any of this’.”

“He has drawn this court case out for four years… and has the temerity to go around telling everyone who will listen that they [the victims] are doing this for the money.”

“What you have is an 86-year-old man who suffers from conditions of old age, who has had 20 years from the time of the offending until now to enjoy life during those good years of health because he wasn’t called to account.”

Judge David Smith will sentence Frith later this month.

Contributors Wanted-Long hours, no pay…Passion for the truth a must


Contributors Wanted-Long hours, no pay…Well I’m kidding about long hours that will be up to you, but yes NO PAY! It’s a tough world this blogging business, and I’m falling behind because I cannot keep up on everything happening nor keep up with cases and events WORTHY of coverage and exposure here! I also encourage people to also have an opinion as an author when they put their name to a story. The debates on here are one of the best things we have

So here is what I am asking for folks and then you can decide if it is something you are interested in doing for our little community here and the wider “Net” for people to discover without fear or favour.

  • Contributors from each State, to allow better coverage on cases in their state as they happen
  • Researchers that can help look beyond the headlines (the sleuths that use more than google to find stuff!) Maybe suitable for anyone who likes to dig around, but not be the face of the article
  • Moderators now I pretty much allow anyone to have their say in the comments, but we do get people who trawl and make extreme comments purely for their own entertainment and stir up trouble. Over use of certain explicit language. So someone to help keep these types in line or off-line all together by deleting irrelevant vulgar comments etc

These are all ideas and please, I do this for you all, assuming you are the same as me and hate seeing the criminals, and scum-bags that float around our cities and streets getting away with stuff unscathed, hidden behind friends in high places or ancient suppression orders handed out like ice creams…

So please, suggestions here are encouraged, make a comment below…because without you guys, this site is nothing… Thanks

The details in the following form are kept private and will never be made public here on the Blog. It is for my eyes only guys…Regards Robbo

Casey Anthony Murder Trial- Live Feed to trial


UPDATE 05/07/11  8 Weeks and finally the jury has gone into deliberations in this case. Closing statements are over, 100′s of pieces of evidence, just short of 100 witnesses and plenty of Barneys with the State and defence going at each other. So 3 years after little Caylee went missing and her little bones were found in swampland near here home, we have the jury in deciding the outcome. I pray to god this disgusting excuse for a mother gets the death Penalty, the very same one she gave her little girl so she could go out and party party party.

State Ends Arguments, Casey Jury To Be Instructed

July 4, 2011

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. — The state ended its closing arguments in Casey Anthony’s murder trial on Monday, and the jury will be instructed by the judge on the seven separate charges Casey faces, including first-degree murder.

Prosecutors in the Casey Anthony murder trial told jurors they kept their promises, alluding to defence claims that never materialized.

Prosecutors also said it is “absurd” to think her 2-year-old daughter drowned or that Casey’s father, George Anthony, covered up Caylee Marie Anthony‘s death to make it look like murder.

Monday marks day 46, including jury selection, in Casey’s trial. She’s accused of killing Caylee.

Casey entered the courtroom just before 8:30 a.m. on Monday, wearing a blue and white striped shirt and dark pants. She had her hair pulled back in a bun. Casey’s parents, Cindy and George Anthony were also present.

The state was trying to persuade the jury that their forensic evidence was strong, countering the defence accusation that it was based on “fantasy.”

Prosecutor Jeff Ashton told the jurors during his rebuttal closing argument that no one makes an innocent accident look like a murder. The defence contends that Caylee drowned in the family’s pool and when Casey panicked, George, a former police officer, decided to make the death look like a homicide by placing duct tape over Caylee’s mouth and dumping her body in some nearby woods. George Anthony has denied that.

“That’s absurd. Nothing has been presented to you to make that any less absurd,” Ashton said.

Ashton also spent significant time reminding the jurors about the forensic evidence that he says links Casey to her daughter’s death, including the smell and chemical signature of decomposition in her car.

After a short recess, it was lead prosecutor Linda Drane-Burdick’s turn. Drane-Burdick told the jurors during the rebuttal closing argument that she and her colleagues backed up every claim they made in their opening statement six weeks ago. Without saying it, she was pointing out to the jury that the defence never directly backed up its opening statement claim that Caylee drowned and that Anthony’s father made the death look like a murder.

The jurors, who were chosen from the Tampa Bay area and sequestered in an Orlando hotel, will then begin their deliberations and decide which portrait of 25-year-old Casey Anthony to believe.

The state contends Casey was a party girl who killed Caylee because the toddler got in the way of her love life.

“Something needed to be sacrificed, that something was either the life she wanted or the life thrust upon her. She chose to sacrifice her child,” Ashton said during his original 90-minute argument Sunday.

Her attorneys contend that after Caylee drowned, her troubled mother’s lies and erratic behaviour were brought on by sexual abuse she suffered as a child from her father. George Anthony also denies that allegation. Judge Belvin Perry has ruled that no evidence of such abuse has been presented and struck it from closing arguments.

Defense attorney Jose Baez said during his closing argument on Sunday that the prosecutors’ case was so weak they tried to portray Casey as “a lying, no-good slut” and that their forensic evidence was based on a “fantasy.” He said Caylee’s death was “an accident that snowballed out of control.” Baez began his closing argument Sunday with his biggest question: How did Caylee die? Neither prosecutors nor the defence have offered firm proof.

He attacked the prosecution’s forensic evidence. He said air analysis of the trunk of Casey’s car, which allegedly showed air molecules consistent with decomposition, could not be duplicated. No one could prove a stain found in the trunk was caused by Caylee’s body decomposing there. And witnesses showed maggots found in the trunk came from a bag of trash that was found there, he said.

“They throw enough against the wall and see what sticks. That is what they’re doing … right down to the cause of death,” Baez said. He conceded his client had told elaborate lies and invented imaginary friends and even a fake father for Caylee, but he said that doesn’t mean she killed her daughter.

Baez also attacked George as unreliable. He said a suicide note that George wrote in January 2009 that claimed no knowledge of what happened to Caylee was self-serving and the attempt was a fraud. He said George claimed he was going to kill himself with a six-pack of beer and some high-blood pressure medicine.

Ashton, the prosecutor, began his closing argument Sunday by showing a video of Casey playing with Caylee, causing Casey to apparently choke back tears. But she quickly regained her composure.

He said Caylee’s death wasn’t an accident because three pieces of duct tape were placed on her face — one on the mouth, one on the nose and one over those to be “thorough.”

He then told the jury that Casey worried Caylee was getting to the age where she would have told Casey’s parents the woman was spending her days and nights with her boyfriend — not going to work and leaving Caylee with a nanny.

“Casey is very bright,” Ashton said. “Her lies are very detailed. … But when Casey wants to do what Casey wants to do, she finds a way.”

The prosecutor then described the lies Casey told her parents, George and Cindy, about why she couldn’t produce Caylee after the toddler was last seen June 16, 2008: that she was with a nanny named Zenaida Gonzalez (Zanny), a woman who doesn’t exist; that Casey and her daughter were spending time in Jacksonville with a rich boyfriend who doesn’t exist; and that Zanny had been hospitalized after an out-of-town traffic accident and that they were spending time with her.

The lies only fell apart, Ashton said, a month later when a junkyard employee told George and Cindy their daughter’s car had been towed. When they picked it up, they discovered a foul odour. George y and the tow yard operator said it smelled like human decomposition.

Cindy then tracked down her daughter. When she couldn’t produce Caylee, her parents called police. Casey then told investigators she worked at Universal Studios theme park as an event planner. She went so far as to take them there, talk her way past security into an office building. She gave up the lie as she was walking down the hall.

After the state is done with its rebuttal Monday, about an hour of jury instructions is expected before deliberations begin.

Casey is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of lying to law enforcement. The child abuse and manslaughter charges each carry a 30-year prison term if convicted.

Casey has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Caylee’s death and could face the death penalty if convicted of that charge.

Re Casey Anthony Trial If anybody wants to chat online about this case during the night I started a chatroom here http://www.chatzy.com/579050344752 while we watch the trial.Come join me there

I just put together a couple of images so you can tell who is where if you come on and watch this trial live each night.

UPDATE well I have been up late at night to the detriment of my family and obligations but this LIVE TO AIR case in intriguing and every day brings a surprise or 5…But this one has to take the cake. Casey’s mum Cindy has done a few flips in this case because she is torn between her only daughter and the grand daughter in question. BUT to lie outright against earlier testimony reeks…She was made a fool of by the state, because what she had to say went against all known depositions etc etc she had given.Now sure save your daughters death penalty but when the time comes….stick to the facts in court…All she has done is discredit herself in front of millions…

Cindy Anthony’s testimony on Thursday directly contradicted prosecutors’ theory that Casey was the one who made the Internet searches.

Chloroform is a chemical compound that can be used to knock someone unconscious and also is found in human decomposition.

She said she started searching chlorophyll, but Google sent her elsewhere. Her attorney said she’s telling the truth and not just trying to protect Casey.

“She testified as truthfully today as she did when she testified for the state of Florida,” said attorney Mark Lippman.

Lippman said Cindy Anthony’s memory is now better because of medication, and now she remembers being home from work on the day “chloroform” was Goggled.

Cindy’s work records indicate she was at work, and prosecutors asked her to read aloud a question from an earlier deposition on the same subject, chloroform searches.

But prosecutors quickly focused on earlier depositions when Cindy denied searching for chloroform.

“Do you recall denying looking up chloroform?” asked prosecutor Linda Drane-Burdick.

“I didn’t look up how to make chloroform, I looked up chloroform,” said Cindy Anthony.

Prosecutors say someone in the Anthony home ran searches on chloroform as many as 84 times.

And prosecutors pointed out that Cindy did not use the website MySpace, while Casey did, and that website was accessed within seconds of one of the chloroform searches.

“If there’s a search for chloroform, then 15-20 seconds later it hit on MySpace, likely it’s Casey as opposed to Cindy,” said Sheaffer.

Other terms that were searched, Cindy could not explain.

Cindy Anthony told prosecutors that she did not run searches on household weapons, chloroform habit or neck-breaking, although she said she remembered a YouTube video involving a skateboarder, whose trick was described as a “neck-breaking feat.”

Prosecutors also asked if the Anthony’s computer was password protected, Cindy said no, but a computer expert then testified that it was and that the searches were done with Casey’s username.

Earlier in the trial, a medical examiner testified that even a small amount of chloroform would be sufficient to cause a child’s death.

Cindy Anthony also said stains in the trunk of Casey’s car were present when the family bought the car in 2000.

The state contends Casey used pieces of duct tape to suffocate her child. The defense says the toddler drowned in her grandparents’ swimming pool.

Casey is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of lying to law enforcement. She has pleaded not guilty and faces the death penalty if convicted.

View from Casey Anthonys table

View from the public gallery to judge

Well I have just spent all night watching the LIVE feed of the Criminal Trial of Casey Anthony in Orlando Florida . She is on trial for the Murder of her daughter Caylee in 2008. The prosecution have sought the DEATH PENALTY if convicted.

I have followed this case since the beginning and to me personally I find it riveting to be actually in the court room as it happens and I feel all major trials should be conducted this way. I will post some background info on this case below, but any true crime lover will be well aware of this case, which has become one of the biggest most protracted murder cases over there for a long time. It was the second day of the trial since the jury has been sworn in.It is expected to run for 4 to 6 weeks. If you are a crime lover and night owl like me, it makes for fascinating viewing. The best link to everything concerned with the case is here. The live feed and blog starts about 11pm AEST (Where all evidence, transcripts, video etc  including a live video feed each day as well as audio can be found!)

Casey Anthony enters court 25th May 2011

Casey Marie Anthony  was the mother of Caylee Anthony. She has been charged with the first degree murder of her daughter, Caylee.

She was first arrested on July 16, 2008, for giving false statements, neglect of a child, and obstruction of a criminal investigation with a request that she be held on a no bond status until Caylee Anthony was located.

On August 21, 2008, Casey Anthony was released after one month of incarceration. She was released from the Orange County jail after her $500,200 bond was posted by California bail bondsman Leonard Padilla.

She was arrested again on August 29, 2008, on charges of forgery, fraudulent use of personal information, and petty theft for forging $700 worth of checks and using her friend’s credit cards without permission. Leonard Padilla subsequently rescinded the $500,200 in bail due to a lack of cooperation from Casey Anthony.

On September 5, 2008, Casey Anthony was released again on bail after being fitted with an electronic tracking device. Her $500,000 bond was posted anonymously, and it was later revealed that her parents, Cindy and George Anthony, signed a promissory note for the bond.

Caylee Anthony's remains were found Dec. 11, 2008 less than a mile from her home.

On October 14, 2008, Casey Anthony was indicted by a grand jury on charges of first-degree murder. The Florida state attorney’s office in April 2009 announced that it intended to seek the death penalty.

Jury selection began May 9, 2011, at the Pinellas County Criminal Justice Centre in Clearwater, Florida, because the case has been so widely reported in the Orlando area. Jurors will be brought from Pinellas County to Orlando where they will be sequestered during the trial, which is expected to last between six and eight weeks.  The trial was originally scheduled to begin May 17, 2011; however, jury selection took much longer than expected and ended on May 20, 2011, with twelve jurors and five alternates being sworn in.

The trial began on May 24, 2011, at the Orange County Courthouse, with Judge Belvin Perry presiding. In the opening statements, prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick described the story of the disappearance of Caylee Anthony day-by-day. The defence, led by Jose Baez, presented its claim that Caylee drowned accidentally in the family’s pool on June 16, 2008, and was found by George Anthony, who then covered up Caylee’s death. Baez also shocked those in the courtroom when he alleged that George Anthony had sexually abused Casey since she was 8 years old. Baez also claimed that Casey’s brother Lee had made sexual advances toward Casey and was even given a paternity test to see if he was Caylee’s father.

According to a jail source, Casey spends her days reading the Bible and writing letters. She is housed in a 12 X 7-foot cell in the Protective Custody wing of the Orange County jail, only emerging to take a shower and exercise. She has weekly meetings with her lawyers and apparently has had no visitors since 2008. Florida law states that all inmate visits and phone calls are videotaped and are public records.

On May 20, 2011, at the Pinellas County Criminal Justice Centre in Clearwater, Florida, a jury of twelve jurors and five alternates were sworn in and will ultimately decide the guilt and the fate of Casey Anthony. The panel contains nine women and eight men. The jurors are to be sequestered in Orange County for the trial, which started on May 24. It has been estimated that the trial will take anywhere from 7 to 10 weeks, during which the jury will be closely supervised and away from their homes, family, friends, and media outlets. On May 24, in the Orange County Courthouse in Orlando, Florida, opening statements were presented.