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

[Jo04]

likewise, jo
i'm within 20km of his suburb, and use gumtree
...that's very creepy


[emoji887]

Wow I'm regional sa 4 hours north West from Adelaide. And yeah pretty much I've learnt of this by the news on the radio in the car 2 mins here and there about the trial. Things like this I generally read up about it and follow from the start. SA justice system are really good at keeping secrets. Don't know if I should be proud or scared


Sent from my ZTE Blade L5 using Tapatalk

 

[Jo04]

Ali Mohammed outside the #SaltCreek trial.

Well done to these men who helped. They didn't know the situation that they were puting themselves in. They should be celebrated for their bravery and chivalry

Sent from my ZTE Blade L5 using Tapatalk

 

[Jo04]

I'm confused by the defence. Why was this even put to trial? They gave nothing to give doubt that he did what had happened.

Sent from my ZTE Blade L5 using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeJudi]

1. In all the reports from Sean Fewster are we missing some testimony? It seems no reference to all testimony or all witnesses questioned was covered. Is this because it was boring or Suppressed?
2. Hmmm,accused only had 95 *advertiser censored* images? Um really? Need some FBI style analysis on those electronic devices or.... is it Suppressed?
Anyone know? JJ?

1. Tweets from court usually provide the most relevant pieces of testimony. There were huge gaps between tweets from time to time (even in excess of an hour IIRC) and there could be multiple reasons for this. As far as the Brazilian is concerned, her testimony would have been suppressed. RH sexually assaulted her and she probably had to give extremely graphic evidence as to exactly what he did. I can't imagine any judge permitting this sort of evidence being broadcast. In fact, it's highly likely the court was closed for that portion of her evidence. Then there's legal argument between counsel which can be quite lengthy and that would also be a good reason for long breaks. They would refer to case law etc and other matters, and yes, that sort of thing can be very boring, particularly when it's not being livestreamed.

2. I agree that 95 *advertiser censored* images doesn't sound a lot when we're accustomed to hearing of paedophiles and perverts having 1,000s on their PCs. The majority of perverts may get their satisfaction just from looking at images. Paedophiles on the other hand are a different kettle of fish, and these days probably download/upload images on the dark web and can't be traced. As far as RH goes, he may have only downloaded images of what he intended to do and 95 was enough - gain ideas on how to gag, tie arms and legs, sexually assault and murder with weapons that could be seen as innocuous for a person who went camping and fishing. If these images were described in court, once again I can understand that any description of them would have been suppressed.

You'll recall that we got many more tweets re the German's testimony. As there's so much violence shown on TV, movies and in video games these days, most people can probably handle just hearing about it.

Maybe Anais could weigh in here with a few thoughts on this.

 

[aequitas]

Wow I'm regional sa 4 hours north West from Adelaide. And yeah pretty much I've learnt of this by the news on the radio in the car 2 mins here and there about the trial. Things like this I generally read up about it and follow from the start. SA justice system are really good at keeping secrets. Don't know if I should be proud or scared


Sent from my ZTE Blade L5 using Tapatalk

scared!

 

[aequitas]

the thing that gets me is issues around RH committing earlier crimes. I think 95 seems low.... If you recall at the start of this matter highly relevant evidence was handed up to the judge by sealed envelope and soon after suppression orders were put in place. I believe there is more than 95 images found on his computer. What about communications with other females on gumtree or dating sites .... Indicating his predator nature. I think there is more to this story than meets the eye.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I'm confused by the defence. Why was this even put to trial? They gave nothing to give doubt that he did what had happened.

Sent from my ZTE Blade L5 using Tapatalk

If an accused pleads not guilty it must go to trial. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I feel confident in saying that his counsel would have advised him to plead guilty. The reasoning behind early guilty pleas and plea bargaining is that court cases take up time and resources. If you plead guilty when your case is heard in court there may already be a jury empanelled, the prosecution will have wasted time preparing for the trial and witnesses may have had to come to court unnecessarily.

Further, an early guilty plea may also show that you have accepted responsibility for your actions and are remorseful.

Pleading guilty before trial can shave anywhere between 10-25%, and occasionally even more, from a sentence.

RH's counsel was caught between a rock and a hard place. He can't say anything to mislead the court, e.g. suggest things that his client didn't tell him, and basically is just ensuring that his client gets a fair trial and that the prosecution proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I was trying to think logically with this about who the defence could get to be a witness. Anyone that was at Salt Creek at the time who had assisted and seen anything was a witness for the prosecution. The only way to really defend this with witnesses would be medical and DNA experts. The medical witnesses would need to prove that the German's injuries were from falling off the 4 wheel drive and the DNA on the Brazilian's body may not have been caused by that stated by the prosecution. I assume the Defence has had access to the results for a while so could call in the appropriate witnesses if possible.

Before trial there’s a process called discovery through which defendants find out about the prosecution’s case. Prosecutors must hand over certain information that’s helpful to the defence. Through standard discovery procedure, they can:

a) get copies of the arresting officers’ reports and statements made by prosecution witnesses, and

b) examine evidence that the prosecution proposes to introduce at trial.

They are not entitled to know the prosecution’s theories and strategies.

Advance disclosure not only promotes fairer trial outcomes, but it also promotes case settlement. Approx. 90% of criminal cases settle before trial.

 

[Jo04]

If an accused pleads not guilty it must go to trial. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I feel confident in saying that his counsel would have advised him to plead guilty. The reasoning behind early guilty pleas and plea bargaining is that court cases take up time and resources. If you plead guilty when your case is heard in court there may already be a jury empanelled, the prosecution will have wasted time preparing for the trial and witnesses may have had to come to court unnecessarily.

Further, an early guilty plea may also show that you have accepted responsibility for your actions and are remorseful.

Pleading guilty before trial can shave anywhere between 10-25%, and occasionally even more, from a sentence.

RH's counsel was caught between a rock and a hard place. He can't say anything to mislead the court, e.g. suggest things that his client didn't tell him, and basically is just ensuring that his client gets a fair trial and that the prosecution proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thankyou!!!!

Sent from my ZTE Blade L5 using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeJudi]

the thing that gets me is issues around RH committing earlier crimes. I think 95 seems low.... If you recall at the start of this matter highly relevant evidence was handed up to the judge by sealed envelope and soon after suppression orders were put in place. I believe there is more than 95 images found on his computer. What about communications with other females on gumtree or dating sites .... Indicating his predator nature. I think there is more to this story than meets the eye.

There are many suppression orders in place and we may never know why. It's quite possible the police have ongoing enquiries regarding other offences and have only produced images they feel are relevant to this trial. Don't you think they would have produced more if they felt it was necessary? The prosecution has produced a rock solid case to the point where the defence, well, had no defence.

It's best to deal with the facts rather than speculate. The name of the game is to get this dangerous man behind bars, and I believe they've done their job well.

 

[aequitas]

I have no way to judge if they produced everything necessary or if we are aware of all that was produced due to unprecedented suppression around this case. I feel entitled as a member of the public to question /speculate. It is not just a case of putting him behind bars if there are other victims and their families who deserve justice/closure. Hence my interest in his electonic footprint.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Sean Fewster @SeanFewster · 39s39 seconds ago
The #SaltCreek trial will not be heard today. It will resume tomorrow from 10am with closing addresses.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I just deleted my post. Obviously I don't read my own words. :blushing:

 

[JudgeJudi]

I have no way to judge if they produced everything necessary or if we are aware of all that was produced due to unprecedented suppression around this case. I feel entitled as a member of the public to question /speculate. It is not just a case of putting him behind bars if there are other victims and their families who deserve justice/closure. Hence my interest in his electonic footprint.

Of course you can speculate, but as a member of the public you’re not entitled to know why things are being done. The prosecution would have requested the suppression orders and they are obliged to provide convincing evidence to support their request.

Two reasons for suppression orders in this trial would no doubt be:

“(a) the order is necessary to protect the safety of any person;

(b) the order is necessary to avoid causing undue distress or embarrassment to a party to or witness in a criminal proceeding involving an offence of a sexual nature (including an act of indecency)”.
[The emphasis added is not mine]

It is a case of putting him behind bars and getting him there as quickly as possible in order that he doesn’t present a danger to anyone else. Other victims and their families have nothing to do with this trial.

As we know, RH has travelled all over Oz and there are many unsolved cases right across the country including Tasmania which I'm sure are under investigation in relation to this man, but this trial is only about the attack on the two backpackers. If the police can link him to other offenders, further charges will follow.

 

[they'll get you]

I'm now convinced *advertiser censored* pickles the brain.
How many times do we see violent *advertiser censored* behind violent rapes and murders.


An electronic crime expert has told a South Australian court an accused man searched for violent *advertiser censored* online including “brutal rape”, in the months before an alleged attack on two backpackers at a remote beach.


http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...r censored*-before-alleged-attacks-court-told

 

[MsAnais]

the thing that gets me is issues around RH committing earlier crimes. I think 95 seems low.... If you recall at the start of this matter highly relevant evidence was handed up to the judge by sealed envelope and soon after suppression orders were put in place. I believe there is more than 95 images found on his computer. What about communications with other females on gumtree or dating sites .... Indicating his predator nature. I think there is more to this story than meets the eye.

BBM

I totally agree Aequitas....it's one of the first things I thought. Also - only 10 searches with rape references in them over a few months.....??!! That simply doesn't ring true to me.

I'd be so surprised if a perpetrator like this wasn't using *advertiser censored* as a stimulant, big-time. *advertiser censored* is usually a very big part of a sex offender's life.

He either hid his trail well (which seems odd since I'd assume forensic LE can find everything now....??) or he's got other devices that he used more regularly....but you'd think they' would have found them.

For the millionth time in this bizarre case, something doesn't really add up here for me.

 

[DRT]

Clicked on the link below via a google search

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sa/a/34744344/salt-creek-accused-wont-speak-at-trial/#page1

and got the message
[h=1]"This story has been removed.[/h]

Rick Goodman - AAP on March 22, 2017, 1:33 pm"


Normally I wouldn't be suspicious but :gaah:

 

[JudgeJudi]

I need to correct the last sentence of #354.

"If the police can link him to other offences [not offenders], further charges will follow".

 

[DRT]

I need to correct the last sentence of #354.

"If the police can link him to other offences [not offenders], further charges will follow".

From the court proceedings so far, assuming a guilty verdict, this may be the case the police needed to keep him in gaol while other cases can be proven or evidence sought. If the Salt Creek offender's DNA has been obtained from other crime scenes it makes connections easier to match, now that they have his DNA.

 

[aequitas]

Clicked on the link below via a google search

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sa/a/34744344/salt-creek-accused-wont-speak-at-trial/#page1

and got the message
"This story has been removed.



Rick Goodman - AAP on March 22, 2017, 1:33 pm"


Normally I wouldn't be suspicious but :gaah:

yes, I agree. Yahoo 7news has removed a bunch of its articles on the trial..... All gone.