GUILTY Australia - Andrew, 45, Rose, 44, & Chantelle Rowe, 16, slain, Kapunda, 8 Nov 2010 #5

[Cyclone82]

No you're not doing the wrong thing.

I dont see how he could confess but then say he has an alibi?

 

[Myserty64]

At some future court appearance the accused will be asked to enter pleas to the charges.
As I understand it he will be charged with three murders. There may or may not be other charges.

What will he plead?

Guilty or not guilty?

 

[kimmy1966]

No you're not doing the wrong thing.

I dont see how he could confess but then say he has an alibi?

It does not make sense to me either but for curiousity sake I just rang an Adelaide Police station and asked the following:

If someone confessed to the crime and then retracted the confession from advice from lawyers, could they then submit an alibi?

The response was well if that is the case why would you need an alibi?

I was trying again to sort the S*!@ from the supposed knowledge of a poster.

I can't help myself sometimes, I will try to Google an answer but if not go to other sources. I work in professional offices so do have some contacts but not always where you would like them to be.

 

[kimmy1966]

At some future court appearance the accused will be asked to enter pleas to the charges.
As I understand it he will be charged with three murders. There may or may not be other charges.

What will he plead?

Guilty or not guilty?

Very good question. Hopefully guilty

 

[Cyclone82]

As I understand it he will be charged with three murders

Plus the supressed charge

 

[KG1]

At some future court appearance the accused will be asked to enter pleas to the charges.
As I understand it he will be charged with three murders. There may or may not be other charges.

What will he plead?

Guilty or not guilty?

If the evidence is overwhelmingly and irrefutably pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of any other person/s, he will be advised to plead guilty - (notwithstanding the pro-offered alibi, mentioned at the remand hearing, which may quietly just go away). In Victoria, the earlier the accused pleads guilty in a matter, the more likelihood of obtaining a parole date, as opposed to receiving a sentence/s with no likelihood of release. A guilty plea, especially an early one, can go to the question of remorse also. Further, it save the families of the victims the anguish of sitting through a trial, in this case likely to be very traumatising and gruesome, and it saves the taxpayers dollars.

On the other hand, if the accused pleads not guilty, then there will be no favours granted - if found guilty, sentence will likely be the full extent of the legislation and accused will be judged to have little or no remorse, as families have to endure the trial, and taxpayers have to pay for it.

My prediction is that the accused in this case will plead guilty. Or maybe even a plea of insanity, which is unlikely to prevail, unless he had a existing mental condition, which is highly doubtful in this case, as all we have read seems to point to him being 'normal', whatever that is.

Just my thoughts again.

 

[chaser33]

I wonder what initially pointed the police to him prior to any DNA evidence?

my money would be on text messages and phone call records on CRs phone

 

[Curiousasacat]

Kimmy, good to see new comments. Welcome to the discussion.Great posts thanks.

 

[templers]

hmmm i read some posts and this is disturbing me as he did not go there with intention to do anything the murder weapon came of the wall in the house it was not a knife.

Just to make it clear, when I said that he obviously went there with bad intentions, that is just my opinion. I could very well be wrong.

Also, if the murder weapon was from the house, on the wall, then it has to be a sword or suchlike.
Why then were the police asking the public to look for a knife?
Were there 2 weapons used? Did he leave the sword at the house and take the knife with him?

 

[Myserty64]

Originally Posted by cbayford
hmmm i read some posts and this is disturbing me as he did not go there with intention to do anything the murder weapon came of the wall in the house it was not a knife.

How could anyone possibly know this: 'as he did not go there with intention to do anything'

Only the perpetrator knows what was going on in his mind and no matter which version he chooses to tell he could be lying.

 

[KG1]

Just to make it clear, when I said that he obviously went there with bad intentions, that is just my opinion. I could very well be wrong.

Also, if the murder weapon was from the house, on the wall, then it has to be a sword or suchlike.
Why then were the police asking the public to look for a knife?
Were there 2 weapons used? Did he leave the sword at the house and take the knife with him?

From what I can gather, the police have not asked or sought any information on a weapon, since the arrest. It is a poster who has posted information about a weapon or a sword type weapon coming from the Rowes' house - this is totally unconfirmed officially to my knowledge.

Perhaps the police have already recovered a weapon, and as all information is suppressed, then that information would not be divulged to the public, until the appropriate time of a trial.

Prior to the arrest, there were rubbish dump searches, wheelie bin searches and property and surrounding area searches. Nothing since the arrest and no mention of same. Seems to me that the police have what they want already, and we will just need to wait for the official information to become known. All we really know is that it was a cutting weapon and it appears to be a singular weapon as police spoke in the singular.

 

[Cyclone82]

Also, if the murder weapon was from the house, on the wall, then it has to be a sword or suchlike.
Why then were the police asking the public to look for a knife?
Were there 2 weapons used? Did he leave the sword at the house and take the knife with him?

In reply to that i had to drag up my post from ages ago (November the 20th) so here it is.
I also dont remember the police asking the 'public' to look for a knife. They probably just asked teh searchers to look for it.

I would like to know more about where exacty the machete/samurai sword suggestion came from and how credible the source is. Is it truely from someone working on the inside? Would police just tell searchers to look for a 'knife' or 'large knife' in general? would there be a need to tell them specifically to look for a machette or samurai sword? I would think that they could be told just to look for any sort of knife in an odd place and there may not have been a need to say 'sword' or 'machete' because obviously if the searchers found any sort of blade stashed or hidden somewhere then it would be picked up as an item of concern no matter what size. Just because they may have only been told to look for a 'knife' that doesnt mean that if they come across a sword they would think 'oh dont worry about that, we were not told to look for a sword/machete, we can just leave that there' That is silly because obviously they wouldnt. So thats why im thinking the sword/machete scenario could still be plausable and the searchers may have not been need to told exactly specifically what type or size. They may have just been told 'any knife or blade, you see, we want it' From what ive seen, the searchers appear mostly to be SES and CFS, so im not sure police would have necessarily wanted/needed to tell these volunteers to look for a sword/machete and risk it beeing leaked to the mass media, the only info they needed to be told was just the fact its a knife of some sort. Thats just my take on it.

 

[KG1]

In reply to that i had to drag up my post from ages ago (November the 20th) so here it is.
I also dont remember the police asking the 'public' to look for a knife. They probably just asked teh searchers to look for it.

No, you are right. The police asked for information on anyone with cuts or blade marks and also purchasing bandages, not a weapon.

I have a link - http://www.crimecasefiles.com/forum/australian-crime-news/22843-three-bodies[/URL] and post 28 is related to the arrest of the accused on 16/11/2010, and Supt. Moyle is quoted:- "Det-Supt Moyle would not confirm if the murder weapon had been found". I think the article is from Adelaide Now.

All we really know as a fact is that it is a bladed instrument.

 

[Cyclone82]

I do konw that a couple days after the arrest/court case the searchers were still looking for the weapon. I think that was the last news report then everything went quiet. One of the Rowes friends would have known if they had an sword on display on their wall. Perhaps thats how rumours of a sword/machete came out very early on?

 

[sbr]

From what I can gather, the police have not asked or sought any information on a weapon, since the arrest. It is a poster who has posted information about a weapon or a sword type weapon coming from the Rowes' house - this is totally unconfirmed officially to my knowledge.

Perhaps the police have already recovered a weapon, and as all information is suppressed, then that information would not be divulged to the public, until the appropriate time of a trial.

Prior to the arrest, there were rubbish dump searches, wheelie bin searches and property and surrounding area searches. Nothing since the arrest and no mention of same. Seems to me that the police have what they want already, and we will just need to wait for the official information to become known. All we really know is that it was a cutting weapon and it appears to be a singular weapon as police spoke in the singular.

I do recall Cat on Aussie Crims stating that her son whom is in the SES was sent to look for the weapon in a particular area as apparently the accused had allegedly told them where to find it.

 

[sniffer]

I do recall Cat on Aussie Crims stating that her son whom is in the SES was sent to look for the weapon in a particular area as apparently the accused had allegedly told them where to find it.

I find this hard to believe. If he had told them where to find the weapon, one would assume they had found it seeing as there has not been an ongoing search. So lets assume he confessed and told them where to find the weapon which they then recovered through an ses search, his lawyer is hardly going to advise him to retract his confession and offer up an alibi if the police have the murder weapon which he led them to. His lawyer would be saying ok lets go with guilty but lets try to get a reduced charge with an insanity plea or the like.

There are a million place to dispose of the weapon where the chance of it being found would be minimal. The weapon is not essential for a conviction and the police are hardly going to comb the entire area if they have no idea where it could possibly be. They are already under-resourced and they may spend thousands of man hours and taxpayers dollars and still come up empty handed.They have looked in the likely and easily searchable places.

They may already have the weapon, but I doubt the accused led them to it.

 

[Fuskier]

Some observations & queries:
in photos from the actual scene, the victim's cars are parked safely outside the front of the property for the night. Does this mean the killer would have known they were home at the time?

The blood trail leading away from the house is interesting. If the killer sustained cuts to his right hand/arm, given the direction in the photo, then he would have walked away from the scene backwards for the blood drops to be where they are shown. If he walked away frontwards then
his right arm would have been closer to the fence line.
Another possibility is that blood was dripping from the weapon or bag held in his left hand?

Is there an explanation as to why the blood trail stops? Is it because the Police Forensics have enough evidence or does the trail stop? If so, why? Did the killer get into a vehicle? or does the trail contnue around the corner and through the back streets which has not been followed up upon?

 

[KG1]

Some observations & queries:
in photos from the actual scene, the victim's cars are parked safely outside the front of the property for the night. Does this mean the killer would have known they were home at the time?

The blood trail leading away from the house is interesting. If the killer sustained cuts to his right hand/arm, given the direction in the photo, then he would have walked away from the scene backwards for the blood drops to be where they are shown. If he walked away frontwards then
his right arm would have been closer to the fence line.
Another possibility is that blood was dripping from the weapon or bag held in his left hand?

Is there an explanation as to why the blood trail stops? Is it because the Police Forensics have enough evidence or does the trail stop? If so, why? Did the killer get into a vehicle? or does the trail contnue around the corner and through the back streets which has not been followed up upon?

No sure how you deduce the above re walking from the scene. I have relooked at a photo of the blood spot/stain markers (20 in the photo) and would only deduce that the target is moving away from the property. the path taken appears to be more in the middle of the walking area than otherwise. At the time these pictures were released, I think on the day following the discovery of the bodies, it was reported in the media that the blood came from shoe/s. Apparently there was a lot of blood inside the house, which could easily have been on the bottom of the assailant's shoes, and indeed on the top too, and dripping down.

The walking area is unsealed, and as the assailant walked away, more gravel would adhere to the footwear, and eventually any blood trace would peter out, and the trail would stop. A lot of the roads in that area are unmade.

It is my belief that the assailant walked to his home as remember he got a lift there, assuming we are referring to the accused.

 

[KG1]

Crime scene photo attached - if it works.

 

[KG1]

Crime scene photo attached - if it works.

Yippee! It worked - 1st time I've done an attachment - what a fluke. Hope it helps.