GUILTY Australia - Jill Meagher, 29, Melbourne, 22 Sep 2012 #4

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
dansw said:
Hi all,
My first post on this forum. I might have missed it but I'm surprised no one has suggested AB may have had a knife. This seems like the obvious weapon to me and one that would make JM get in a car too. Awful thoughts I know.
Click to expand...

He most certainly would have had a knife. The probability is so high I just assumed everyone would think this way.
 
LegallyBrunette said:
Media has been very quiet about others in the footage, maybe they have come forward. Some of the media sites have taken the video down and only have stills now. The man who turned around is the one who saw something that made him turn to look back. Mind you, the one with the shoulder bag could have had the old earphones plugged in and was oblivious.
Click to expand...

I think the others have come forward but it may have been the day he was arrested and there was no need to make mention.

DG's information was nothing anyway, that may be why it was released and publicized the way it was. That would not have panicked AB.

From memory though, I think the first couple that walk past came forward, I think she lives on top of the store. I can't find a link, I would have heard it on radio though.
 
DrWatson said:
Beg to differ - I think that's just the fringing artifact again.

I really can't see somebody walking boldly down the street with a gun on view, or even waving one about. That would be no way to get somebody to follow him. The cops would be there in a flash.

On the other point - I wonder if the police ever found the other two people? The student-type with the shoulder/messenger style bag? And particularly important - the guy in the suit or jacket who turned to look at something that happened out of camera view. What he saw could be crucial. If he has come forward, then I suspect the alleged perp is toast. If he HASN'T come forward - then you'd have to ask yourself why not? What has he got to hide?
Click to expand...
I take your point, but it is not on view. We only see it because the camera in the shop captured the image. Nor is he waving it about. He seems experienced with it. It is held down, close to his leg, and he walks more slowly close by the windows. He knows where his target is. He walks towards her at the right hand side of the windows. It is 1.41 am in the morning, not many about. It is dark. Most shops are in darkness. At the moment he motions her forwards with it, there are surprising few cars about. Maybe he knew what time to pick or it was just coincidental. Hypothetically, she had no choice if he had a gun. It is one possible theory among others in my opinion.
 
This weeks Womans Day has an article about Jill and how other women have been hassled.
Local women have been more vigilant since an unsolved sexual assult earlier in the year in nearby Fitzroy. Another woman tells how a man chased her in his car, opened the door and told her to get in. She ran down an alley way to get away.

http://womansday.ninemsn.com.au/
 
Lysol said:
He most certainly would have had a knife. The probability is so high I just assumed everyone would think this way.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think that is a presumption, and a guess. I certainly wouldn't think this way. He MAY have had a knife, which he may have produced later. But I don't know how many times it has to be said that he did NOT have a gun in any of that video - OR a knife. It is fringing artifact. You can clearly see the black shadow around and along the edges of every light-coloured object (eg his hand).

I really don't think he had ANY weapon with which he would threaten Jill - not at that time anyway. If he did - then WHY did Jill walk in the same direction he did? There were other people about on Sydney Rd - if he was waving knife or a gun at her, surely she would have simply run the other way and screamed. She looked WAY too calm on the CCTV footage.

Nope - I think he didn't need any threatening weapon. He somehow convinced her that she was safe - either by leaving and turning the corner, or by convincing her that somebody MORE dangerous was following her. So much so that she FOLLOWED him. There's no way I could see her doing that if he was threatening her with a gun. And to threaten somebody with a knife, you have to be up in their face almost - not several paces away and leaving her standing still....

EDIT: one other point springs to mind - and the legal types on here can correct me if I'm wrong on this... but if he DID have a gun or a knife, then wouldn't the charge involve ARMED abduction or however it is worded? Or going armed in public, or some such? If the police really thought he had a weapon?

The other point is that the "gun" shadow is actually too small to be a real gun. I don't know how many of you have actually handled a real small-arm (I have - many times) but something of the size that is suggested in those still frames would be a fake cigarette lighter pistol or a toy at the most. If it were real. Which I'm sure it wasn't... ;)
 
DrWatson said:
I disagree. I think that is a presumption, and a guess. I certainly wouldn't think this way. He MAY have had a knife, which he may have produced later. But I don't know how many times it has to be said that he did NOT have a gun in any of that video - OR a knife. It is fringing artifact. You can clearly see the black shadow around and along the edges of every light-coloured object (eg his hand).

I really don't think he had ANY weapon with which he would threaten Jill - not at that time anyway. If he did - then WHY did Jill walk in the same direction he did? There were other people about on Sydney Rd - if he was waving knife or a gun at her, surely she would have simply run the other way and screamed. She looked WAY too calm on the CCTV footage.

Nope - I think he didn't need any threatening weapon. He somehow convinced her that she was safe - either by leaving and turning the corner, or by convincing her that somebody MORE dangerous was following her. So much so that she FOLLOWED him. There's no way I could see her doing that if he was threatening her with a gun. And to threaten somebody with a knife, you have to be up in their face almost - not several paces away and leaving her standing still....

EDIT: one other point springs to mind - and the legal types on here can correct me if I'm wrong on this... but if he DID have a gun or a knife, then wouldn't the charge involve ARMED abduction or however it is worded? Or going armed in public, or some such? If the police really thought he had a weapon?

The other point is that the "gun" shadow is actually too small to be a real gun. I don't know how many of you have actually handled a real small-arm (I have - many times) but something of the size that is suggested in those still frames would be a fake cigarette lighter pistol or a toy at the most. If it were real. Which I'm sure it wasn't... ;)
Click to expand...

A person must not in a public place possess or carry a dangerous article without a lawful excuse.
LAWFUL EXCUSE DOES NOT INCLUDE SELF DEFENCE

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?document_id=25574
 
DrWatson said:
I disagree. I think that is a presumption, and a guess. I certainly wouldn't think this way. He MAY have had a knife, which he may have produced later. But I don't know how many times it has to be said that he did NOT have a gun in any of that video - OR a knife. It is fringing artifact. You can clearly see the black shadow around and along the edges of every light-coloured object (eg his hand).

I really don't think he had ANY weapon with which he would threaten Jill - not at that time anyway. If he did - then WHY did Jill walk in the same direction he did? There were other people about on Sydney Rd - if he was waving knife or a gun at her, surely she would have simply run the other way and screamed. She looked WAY too calm on the CCTV footage.

Nope - I think he didn't need any threatening weapon. He somehow convinced her that she was safe - either by leaving and turning the corner, or by convincing her that somebody MORE dangerous was following her. So much so that she FOLLOWED him. There's no way I could see her doing that if he was threatening her with a gun. And to threaten somebody with a knife, you have to be up in their face almost - not several paces away and leaving her standing still....

EDIT: one other point springs to mind - and the legal types on here can correct me if I'm wrong on this... but if he DID have a gun or a knife, then wouldn't the charge involve ARMED abduction or however it is worded? Or going armed in public, or some such? If the police really thought he had a weapon?

The other point is that the "gun" shadow is actually too small to be a real gun. I don't know how many of you have actually handled a real small-arm (I have - many times) but something of the size that is suggested in those still frames would be a fake cigarette lighter pistol or a toy at the most. If it were real. Which I'm sure it wasn't... ;)
Click to expand...
IMO we don't know enough to be sure of anything. We have differing opinions and that is what case discussion is all about. So far we have: black gloves, a taser, a gun, a knife and black shadows. If the gun was not real, the victim may not have been able to tell and most likely would have felt threatened and followed orders. I'm sure that VPolice have more and better images than the public have access to. Without hard evidence, or an admission, they may not be able to bring charges yet. Meanwhile the investigation is ongoing according to MSM and VPolice cannot comment further due to the matter being before the Courts. My opinion only.
 
Fuskier said:
IMO we don't know enough to be sure of anything. We have differing opinions and that is what case discussion is all about. So far we have: black gloves, a taser, a gun, a knife and black shadows. I'm sure that VPolice have more and better images than the public have access to. Without hard evidence, or an admission, they may not be able to bring charges yet. Meanwhile the investigation is ongoing according to MSM and VPolice cannot comment further due to the matter being before the Courts. My opinion only.
Click to expand...

There is no way in the world that police would release footage asking for a man to come forward if he had a weapon in his hand, they said there was always a slim chance she may be alive, although they didn't really think so.
 
GutFeeling! said:
There is no way in the world that police would release footage asking for a man to come forward if he had a weapon in his hand, they said there was always a slim chance she may be alive, although they didn't really think so.
Click to expand...

Excellent point..! :rocker:
 
DrWatson said:
EDIT: one other point springs to mind - and the legal types on here can correct me if I'm wrong on this... but if he DID have a gun or a knife, then wouldn't the charge involve ARMED abduction or however it is worded? Or going armed in public, or some such? If the police really thought he had a weapon?

... ;)
Click to expand...

Crimes Act 1958 - SECT 55
Abduction or detention

55. Abduction or detention

A person must not take away a person by force or detain a person against his
or her will-

(a) with the intention of getting married to, or taking part in an act of
sexual penetration with, that person; or

(b) with the intention that that person should marry, or take part in an
act of sexual penetration with, another person.

Penalty: Level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).

Crimes Act 1958 - SECT 31B

31B. Being armed with criminal intent

(1) In this section-

controlled weapon has the same meaning as in the Control of Weapons Act 1990;
firearm has the same meaning as in the Firearms Act 1996; imitation firearm
has the same meaning as in section 29; prohibited weapon has the same meaning
as in the Control of Weapons Act 1990.

(2) A person who, with criminal intent, is armed with a firearm, an imitation
firearm, a prohibited weapon or a controlled weapon is guilty of an indictable
offence.

Penalty: Level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum).


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/
 
GutFeeling! said:
There is no way in the world that police would release footage asking for a man to come forward if he had a weapon in his hand, they said there was always a slim chance she may be alive, although they didn't really think so.
Click to expand...

Sorry to jump off myself.

This is the story that explains how the police went about everything, which, imo would certainly rule out the fact they would show footage of a man with a weapon that could panic.

On Wednesday morning the homicide detectives had to make some tough decisions. They had sourced some CCTV footage from a Sydney Road boutique, which showed Jill outside the shop at 1.43am - her last known sighting just 450 metres from home. It also showed a man in a blue hoodie talking to her.
From the moment the detectives saw these images he became their number one suspect.
There was some debate over whether to make to the footage public. Police knew that he would surely be identified once it was released, but if Jill was still alive the consequences would be disastrous.
The truth was police had concluded she was dead.


Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nat...re-killings-20120928-26qql.html#ixzz28K8boBDv
 
GutFeeling! said:
Sorry to jump off myself.

This is the story that explains how the police went about everything, which, imo would certainly rule out the fact they would show footage of a man with a weapon that could panic.

On Wednesday morning the homicide detectives had to make some tough decisions. They had sourced some CCTV footage from a Sydney Road boutique, which showed Jill outside the shop at 1.43am - her last known sighting just 450 metres from home. It also showed a man in a blue hoodie talking to her.
From the moment the detectives saw these images he became their number one suspect.
There was some debate over whether to make to the footage public. Police knew that he would surely be identified once it was released, but if Jill was still alive the consequences would be disastrous.
The truth was police had concluded she was dead.


Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nat...re-killings-20120928-26qql.html#ixzz28K8boBDv
Click to expand...
The VPolice weighed the risks and decided to release the CCTV video. It is open to public interpretation. The VPolice were calling it a suspected 'abduction' initially. Criminals disregard The Law and often have 'no regard' for life. My opinion only.
 
Fuskier said:
The VPolice weighed the risks and decided to release the CCTV video. It is open to public interpretation. The VPolice were calling it a suspected 'abduction' initially. Criminals disregard The Law and often have 'no regard' for life. My opinion only.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and there has been a lot of conflicting information released. Understandably, during the initial investigation things may change as new evidence emerged, but once they arrested AB, there were still a lot of discrepancies.
 
A reminder to stay on topic...we can't be posting reports of other cases which are unrelated to Jill's case.
 
I went to have another look at the YouTube slow motion video posted by a member on the last thread and to my surprise, found the following message on the now unviewable video clip - 'This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy on nudity and sexual content'. It was there last night.
Looking again at the normal publicly released full CCTV version, as AB walks north the first time, then comes back south, it appears to me that he is wearing gloves. In the final walk north, when Jill also is seen, his hand is somehow different and that is the slow motion of the hand, and it has now been pulled, for the above stated reasons. I found this very strange.
 
KG1 said:
I went to have another look at the YouTube slow motion video posted by a member on the last thread and to my surprise, found the following message on the now unviewable video clip - 'This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy on nudity and sexual content'. It was there last night.
Looking again at the normal publicly released full CCTV version, as AB walks north the first time, then comes back south, it appears to me that he is wering gloves. In the final walk north, when Jill also is seen, his hand is somehow different and that is the slow motion of the hand, and it has now been pulled, for the above stated reasons. I found this very strange.
Click to expand...

I agree. For what it's worth, it looks like a gun in his hand. And I know too little about the technical aspects of video tape to be convinced by arguments that it is some artifact of the tape. However, on reflection, I don't think it can be a gun. And here's why. The police would not have released a tape showing a man with a weapon pointed at a woman who has disappeared. You'd have a crisis of fear and possible vigilantism running through the community that would suck up so many resources that it may become impossible to find the victim in this case. And in my view, they wouldn't risk it. Of course, I could be wrong but this is my considered view.
 
LeoBear said:
I agree. For what it's worth, it looks like a gun in his hand. And I know too little about the technical aspects of video tape to be convinced by arguments that it is some artifact of the tape. However, on reflection, I don't think it can be a gun. And here's why. The police would not have released a tape showing a man with a weapon pointed at a woman who has disappeared. You'd have a crisis of fear and possible vigilantism running through the community that would suck up so many resources that it may become impossible to find the victim in this case. And in my view, they wouldn't risk it. Of course, I could be wrong but this is my considered view.
Click to expand...

I'll just add to your post... there is nothing in MSM which verifies that the accused had some type of weapon.

Above all else, the CCTV released would have been harrowing enough for Jill's husband & family to see....police wouldn't have released it if there was some type of weapon shown. Police technology & knowledge of weapons is far superior to ours.
 
Something that really struck me about the CCTV footage......the MSM reports are that in the footage in front of the bridal store JM appears to follow him and I know there had been some discussion earlier about maybe she's following him because he had a weapon etc.....
Well in my opinion ( and its only that) other than the fact he is obviously going in the same direction as her then I don't think she appears to follow him at all - because the very first time I saw the footage and before I had heard much about the case, my first thought was 'she's been drinking' - because any lady who has ever worn high heels and had a few drinks (and I'm talking from experience!) knows that you get a momentum to walk forward, in fact it can be hard to stand still.... And that's what's I thought when I saw the footage, to me it looks like she's trying to stop and keep away from him but her momentum is making her teeter forward towards him.
IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 174 more.
Total: 1,585 (members: 175, guests: 1,410)

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
1,410
Total visitors
1,585
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,486
Messages
18,006,873
Members
229,417
Latest member
aimilino01
Back
Top