Knot4u2no
Verified Expert
I will continue to follow this case, but will no longer be posting related to it. Sorry, but too much drama for me.
Russell
GUILTY Australia - Andrew, 45, Rose, 44, & Chantelle Rowe, 16, slain, Kapunda, 8 Nov 2010 #3
- Thread starter fran
- Start date
- Status
I will continue to follow this case, but will no longer be posting related to it. Sorry, but too much drama for me.
Russell
Maybe...I've been thinking a lot about the alibi and trying to imagine what it could be. I don't think his "lame excuse" could be the reason; and we know his best friends can't be his alibi; and you wouldn't think his mother would make the statement she did if it's her and you could probably apply the same reasoning to his brother.
So I am wondering if he could be claiming he was somewhere else and the lawyer was referring to identification procedures to prove it (ie CCTV, witnesses etc)...or if his alibi is electronic (eg logging on, text etc).
Please understand I am not saying he has a legitimate alibi, I am just looking at everything with an open mind.
Why all this conjecture about what happened at the crime scene? It is all guesswork at best.
There has been arrest.
Unless the accused has confessed there will be a trial.
At that trial there will be a defence team who will challenge the police evidence.
The accused is innocent until proved guilty.
People have every right to be angry about this horrible crime and what happened to the Rowe family.
However we can't set ourselves up as jury, judge and executioner.
Okay, so we don't have captital punishment in this country so forget excecutioner.
However I wish we did have the ability to get rid of the low-lifes who did what they did to the Rowes.
What is the point of keeping whoever murdered that family alive?
There has been arrest.
Unless the accused has confessed there will be a trial.
At that trial there will be a defence team who will challenge the police evidence.
The accused is innocent until proved guilty.
People have every right to be angry about this horrible crime and what happened to the Rowe family.
However we can't set ourselves up as jury, judge and executioner.
Okay, so we don't have captital punishment in this country so forget excecutioner.
However I wish we did have the ability to get rid of the low-lifes who did what they did to the Rowes.
What is the point of keeping whoever murdered that family alive?
Mrs G Norris
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 14,077
- Reaction score
- 6,172
Aussiecriminals
Member
Wow, what happened, we have gone backwards? Well that's ok, it is only a matter of time. Such a shame for all you guys who have spent hours (days even) contributing, and I guess the word here is "Sleuthing" the web. That is the idea here I thought. Luckily some, like me may of saved the thread in its entirety (except last night) so maybe they will return some stuff at the appropriate time. I am looking forward to Wednesday that's for sure. But like Missus G said, we should be celebrating the life of Chantelle and her family maybe for now!
I am thinking the police would have pretty good evidence before risking ruining this kids life like this. I mean it's not like he was some low life always getting into trouble, bludging on the dole etc. People might comment on his intelligence because he left school but the boy left, did a TAFE course and is now doing an apprenticeship. Some people just don't do well in the school system particularly with the way teaching standards are these days.
Lets say he is innocent, he is going to have a lot of trouble coming back from this now. So I would like to think the police made damn sure they were on the right track. Also, with knowing it would be a hot topic amongst hundreds of teenagers and be all over social networking websites you would think they would want to make sure the defence wouldn't get him off. After such a gruesome attack you would think they would want to make sure the person that did this didn't get away with it.
Lets say he is innocent, he is going to have a lot of trouble coming back from this now. So I would like to think the police made damn sure they were on the right track. Also, with knowing it would be a hot topic amongst hundreds of teenagers and be all over social networking websites you would think they would want to make sure the defence wouldn't get him off. After such a gruesome attack you would think they would want to make sure the person that did this didn't get away with it.
Thankyou for pointing this out, nd as i was typing i want sure if it would be ok. I thought it would be as i was stating that it was only written on a tribute page, and thought it was worth mentioning as it was written (and yes i know this doesnt make it factual) that it was reported in a newspaper. I will keep it in mind.
I was also wondering in one of the posts where my post was quoted her name was changed to 'edit' are we not even allowed to mention the victims name anymore?
Yeah i had been thinking that as well but i doubt we are going to be able to find a floor plan of the house. We have Google Earth but that doesnt show much and i couldnt find the exact number the house was.
I was also wondering if we could get around things by hosting photos etc on our own indvidual hosting sites such as Village Photos, Photo bucket, Windows skydrive, Flicker etc as they are not social networking sites?
This whole case is doing my head in, cant stop thinking about it and cant get to sleep etc.
SnifferDog77
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 0
Sounds like this one above, is like many other rumours running rampant in the community. I've been told a lot of grizzly details about this and that in recent weeks and have been informed that they have little substance so would like the local community to perhaps consider that not all of what we are hearing is true. I guess we won't know til the trial but in any event, please take any rumours that you hear as just that; rumours. Just a thought.
Mrs G Norris
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 14,077
- Reaction score
- 6,172
Hi y'all.....I don't know about you, but I have heard some pretty wild rumours about what happened in the house during this crime, thanks to the suppression order I think minds have started to run wild. These rumours are untrue, and everyone can rest assured that while of course it was an horrific crime, the really depraved stories did not happen....I hope that sets some minds at ease 
aww thanks Russell and sorry about this. We have been told to get it off the web best we can.
I am with you there, funny how people know more than locals. They just run with random things I don't even know how they justify their fabrication, people are forgetting this is NOT an episode of "the bold and beautiful" it's real life with real people!
are you referring to members here? or people in general?
Just in general, some people are worse than others, none of us really know what happened and some people speculate and run with it like it is fact. Even the victim family don't have many facts due to it being an ongoing investigation. All these people are doing is inventing a "mob" mentality. He certainly has done the right thing not asking for bail, he would be lynched if he was not there and then no one would ever know why who etc. There is a suppression order for a reason and people need to use common sense for the sake of the victims family
I actually think that it was the suppression order that has caused all these rumours to run rampant. By not releasing any details it's allowed people's imaginations to run rampant. In this regard, suppressing the details have been completely counterproductive, and if anything have added fuel to the fire. If they had been more open with what they have found then I doubt that people would be scrutinising and theorising about the events as much.
One point to keep in mind, however, is that it was the prosecution that requested the suppression order and not the defense. As such I am sure there is a good reason for it, perhaps they are worried that releasing aspects of the case might jeopardise a conviction, or perhaps the investigation is still on-going. It's also not uncommon for the police to deliberately withhold information so that they can use this information to validate people's claims (whether it be a confession, tips/call ins etc).
This case is intriguing because there are so many unanswered questions, but perhaps it's best to take a step back and wait until we hear further info. I've been guilty myself of believing things posted here and elsewhere, even though the source hasn't been verified. As a result I am also guilty of jumping to conclusions that aren’t necessarily true. For all we know this kid may be innocent (and the old innocent until proven guilty idiom applies). Some of the things posted recently have certainly raised some doubts in my mind. Things just don't add up atm, and perhaps thats because of all the misinformation flying around.
One point to keep in mind, however, is that it was the prosecution that requested the suppression order and not the defense. As such I am sure there is a good reason for it, perhaps they are worried that releasing aspects of the case might jeopardise a conviction, or perhaps the investigation is still on-going. It's also not uncommon for the police to deliberately withhold information so that they can use this information to validate people's claims (whether it be a confession, tips/call ins etc).
This case is intriguing because there are so many unanswered questions, but perhaps it's best to take a step back and wait until we hear further info. I've been guilty myself of believing things posted here and elsewhere, even though the source hasn't been verified. As a result I am also guilty of jumping to conclusions that aren’t necessarily true. For all we know this kid may be innocent (and the old innocent until proven guilty idiom applies). Some of the things posted recently have certainly raised some doubts in my mind. Things just don't add up atm, and perhaps thats because of all the misinformation flying around.
tlcya
Old and Re-Tired Websleuth
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 42,321
- Reaction score
- 66,602
I think the real question is
If he had an alibi, why wasn't it offered and substantiated before now and is that what the supression is, an opportunity for LE to check out this alibi's veracity before this thing procedes any further?
I am going to have to rely on you folks on the other side of the world for the ins and outs of how things work in your neck of the woods.
Is this possible?
Well, we won't know anything more until Wednesday - if they decide to release any more details. And if it does go to court then it won't be until well into the new year (Feb). And that will only be a hearing to see if there is enough evidence to go to trial. If he pleads guilty at this stage, we may never know what happened as they could still surpress the information. If would just go straight to sentencing.
No point sitting around talking about it for the next 6 months.
- Status