GUILTY Australia - Andrew, 45, Rose, 44, & Chantelle Rowe, 16, slain, Kapunda, 8 Nov 2010 #3

[rl85]

if they arrested him how is an 'alabi' relevnt to his case? i dont see how he could be locked up if he had an alabi...i need to read up on law/legal procedings i think

Because they obviously had enough evidence to arrest him in the first place. And they need to suss the alibi out thoroughly before they simply just release him. And i guess since they haven't released him, the evidence far outweighed his alibi claims?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I have a feeling the secrecy is just until the full DNA lab results come back...they're just making absolute sure here before they release his name....ETA and maybe the psyche eval?

 

[tart]

they havent found the murder weapon and they cant charge you coz of dna....makes you wonder what else they know they havent released....surely with no murder weapon, no one seeing him leave/arrive and the 'alabi' isnt enough to hold him in custody? im not saying he didnt do it...im just curious how he can be held...

also imagine if he is innocent...his name has been ruined forever..

 

[anjay]

Hi everyone - (new here so hopes this works) have been reading all the posts over the last few days & have to agree that there is a lot of rumours going around. To me I see that police would withhold as much detail as possible in the event that the person charged (if not admitting guilt) would more than likely submitt a alibi (this would take time as he would only do this after legal advice & they would only invterview him with legal in attendance, hence the delay in reporting that an alibi has been put forward) - logic (or maybe not in my case) tells me that during questioning & investigations, if very little info is out there then only they and the killer know more or less exactly what happended and have more chance that the alleged killer will trip up and incriminate himself. well that my thoughts on it anyway.

 

[nobody11]

they havent found the murder weapon and they cant charge you coz of dna....makes you wonder what else they know they havent released....surely with no murder weapon, no one seeing him leave/arrive and the 'alabi' isnt enough to hold him in custody? im not saying he didnt do it...im just curious how he can be held...

also imagine if he is innocent...his name has been ruined forever..

Absolutely

 

[anjay]

they havent found the murder weapon and they cant charge you coz of dna....makes you wonder what else they know they havent released....surely with no murder weapon, no one seeing him leave/arrive and the 'alabi' isnt enough to hold him in custody? im not saying he didnt do it...im just curious how he can be held...

also imagine if he is innocent...his name has been ruined forever..

He did not apply for bail at the hearing and is why they still hold him in custody. I betting his legal counsel advised that he not apply and remain in custody as it would be safer for him with so many angry and emotionally charged people around (not knowing if the courts would have granted it anyway). but your right it does make you wonder what else they know. not long to wait now 2 days.

 

[Benny08]

they havent found the murder weapon and they cant charge you coz of dna....makes you wonder what else they know they havent released....surely with no murder weapon, no one seeing him leave/arrive and the 'alabi' isnt enough to hold him in custody? im not saying he didnt do it...im just curious how he can be held...

also imagine if he is innocent...his name has been ruined forever..

Why can't one be held/charged because of DNA?

 

[tart]

i heard he was denied bail anyway...but i dont see how they could keep him locked up until feb on the evidence (that we know of)

you'd have to hope he was guilty coz i doubt there is anyway he could get his life together again after being accused...

 

[tart]

because dna doesnt make you guilty this was discussed in one of the other 2 forums which are temp closed...dna shows he was there (but was there the day before for the party i think?) but it doesnt prove that he did it....

 

[anjay]

I think you will find you can be charged here with no weapon found and on dna evidence.

 

[Benny08]

because dna doesnt make you guilkty this was discussed in one of the other 2 forums which are temp closed...dna shows he was there (but was there the day before for the party i think?) but it doesnt prove that he did it....

Well that's why there are trials. To see if he's guilty. You can most certainly be charged or at least held because of DNA. Especially if it's his blood that they found.

 

[anjay]

dont forget it was just a hearing not a trial, all the evidence they put forward would just prove he was there and with other evidence backs up the charge against him - during the trial is when they have to prove he did it.

 

[indizio]

I think you will find you can be charged here with no weapon found and on dna evidence.

It depends on what kind of DNA evidence. If it was blood evidence or semen evidence, we can pretty much guarantee that he would be charged.

If it was a piece of hair or skin tissue, well, he was her friend and had been over to their house before, so that might not hold in court.

 

[anjay]

It depends on what kind of DNA evidence. If it was blood evidence or semen evidence, we can pretty much guarantee that he would be charged.

If it was a piece of hair or skin tissue, well, he was her friend and had been over to their house before, so that might not hold in court.

I agree all the evidence put together would need to have been very compelling like blood or semen to make the charge stick at the hearing.

 

[JBean]

Guys, I am going to put one of the threads back out here in a bit. Both of the old threads will be closed for posting, but you can still read.
But there are over 1300 posts so as you can imagine it is a process.
So, if all of you would be so kind as to alert on anything you see that should not be posted.
To alert, please hit the triangle in the upper right corner of the offending post. A text box will pop up and you can write a little note and then submit.

For those of you that have been dying to push the alert, but don't have anything to alert please go ahead because you get a chance to cancel before it goes to all the moderators.

 

[stevena]

The lawyer also added "It's also put that identification procedures may result." I would love to hear want anyone thinks they mean by this...

Identification procedures where there is more than one suspect.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s3zp.html

 

[midsommer]

This is my first post here.
I live in SA but not in the Barossa area and I don't know anyone from the family of their friends, however I have been intrigued by this case from the beginning, and following it closely (including the older threads here that have been closed).

When I heard of the murders, one of the first things I did was to view CR's FB page and look at all her friends walls (those silly enough not to have then set to private) and all the friends of those friends.

I have kept a vigilant eye on the FB posts of friends and friends of friends, and I have seen many comments that were deleted only shortly after being posted, usually when someone said "you shouldn't say that".
I think I have a pretty good idea of the teenage social network in the town at the time of the crimes.

People on this forum have implied that the crime appears solved because of the DNA evidence. They have assumed that the police arrested the alleged murderer based on DNA evidence found in blood.
The police have not said that.
Police immediately said they had DNA of a male, which indicates that DNA was gathered from semen of the person who most recently had sex with CR.
But whay assume that person is the killer?

The police have not said that the trail of blood coming from the house was the blood of the killer.
They only said that they thought the killer may have been injured in the attack.
I think it is more likely that the blood outside was the blood of the family on the shoes of the killer.

Lots of DNA evidence would have been found in the house.
There was a party there the night before and on Friday night.
Many of CRs friends were at both parties.
The alleged killer was at the Saturday one (don't know if he was at the Friday one) and the kids who attended all said nothing unusual happened then.

If blood DNA was found, there are many innocent reasons it could be in the house after 2 parties in 2 days. A simple cut finger, a blood nose, even a home-done piercing.

The other important assumption that people here are making is about CR herself. She was only just 16 (her birthday was in June) and she was photogenic.

I don't feel comfortable writting this, but in the interest of a fuller picture, I think this bit is important.

Look at her photos on myspace {mod edit} link removed
She has a profile pic that she is taking with her own camera, showing the word "hoe" written across her chest.
She calls herself "hoe-bagg" and says this - "More of a guys girl than a girls girl".
(For U.S.A ppl - "hoe" is slang for *advertiser censored* in Australia)

Now, I am not judging her and I do know what teens are like, but I do want to point out that she does not try to present herself as sexually inexperienced.

From many FB discussions, it seems she did not actually have one particular special boyfriend.
Remember it was the mother of the b/f who spoke on TV and said her son was CR's b/f. That comment lead to ppl reading the FB pages and putting 2 and 2 together and deciding who the b/f was.

As for the "I love you" posts on FB, there were many like that from CR to various ppl, male and female friends. It seems to be the way she communicated and should not be taken as evidence of a romatic or special relationship.

CR changed schools 3 time in 3 years.
Again, reading old FB posts, it seems she may have become ostracised from the school social groups by groups of girls.
I think it is important to notice that her relationships and lifestyle were complicated.

Turning to the alleged killer, several things jump out.

First, he wasn't that bright.
His posts shiow that despite wanting a future career in the motor trade, he could not spell "mechanic".
However, despite this problem, he got into TAFE (Techical college) and was apparently a hard worker and well liked by his work-mates.
He seems to have been a quietish, but generally well liked young lad.
He does not seem the sort who could cunningly hide the evidence of a crime and then act as if he knew nothing about it while mourning with his friends.
He did not run away.
He willing gave DNA for testing as soon as he was asked.
He allowed his car and house to be searched.
He was not some sort of wierdo loner.
He, and the person named as the b/f were best mates.
They appear to have shared a very close friendship with CR, as did several others in their social group.

People here have asked, "if he had an alibi, why didn't he mention it earlier".
Well, if he is innocent, maybe he was never asked for an alibi, and maybe he never thought he would need one.

So, here is an alternate idea that I would like to put to you all.

Perhaps he actually is innocent.
Perhaps he did have sex with CR earlier in the evening.
Perhaps he had already told the police this.
Perhaps he has no reason to have withhold any of this information.

A previous poster mentioned that he was driven to the police station by a workmate to sign his statement.
She said he was calm during the drive.
If that is true, maybe it is because he is innocent?

 

[mum73]

Identification procedures where there is more than one suspect.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s3zp.html

This is REALLY interesting...I thought maybe there was a delay in putting forward his alibi because of either legal advice; or because they had to substantiate it first; or maybe he didn't realise he had one at first (maybe electronic somehow eg didn't realise logging in on a PC could provide alibi)...but by the sounds of this, they could also be waiting on forensics to prove someone else was there...

There are just so many unanswered questions, I can really understand how people believe the suppression order is making things worse...

 

[midsommer]

I just realised that my post above sounds a bit convoluted.

My purpose was to point out that the DNA evidence, whatever it is, may not actally prove who the murderer was.

I wanted to consider why the alleged killer's DNA may have been found at the scene but may not necessarily indicate that he was the killer.

 

[indizio]

From many FB discussions, it seems she did not actually have one particular special boyfriend.

her relationship status on Facebook was set as D**** P****.

Perhaps he did have sex with CR earlier in the evening.

The fact that he could still be charged with rape over that, due to her being under age, would be why he hasn't admitted to this. He could still receive 10 years imprisonment just for sex with a minor.