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

[BreakingNews]

The media were at the gravesite, we saw photos of the blue tarp. There were detailed descriptions of the coroners car coming (the white unmarked van) - media were there for sure.

the media really worked well with Police, I am not sure it was a compromise or anything - just a case of "this is what we have" - it could only be what they had been told because they had no body at the time of the Press release.

Hi GutFeeling. Media could have come hours and hours after the body was found. It is my understanding that the coroner often travels with the police and the crime scene is thoughly searched prior to the body being removed. Removing the body is usually one of the last things done at a crime scene.

 

[somanto]

A couple of things. People emotionally invested in the case should not be on the job. Period. It stops them from doing their job. Second, I doubt that what happened to Jill was worst than what happened in the.case of Anita Cobby, the bodies in the Harrell or Claremont. Assuming this us the case then I am wondering about the purpose of the briefing.

Just my opinion but as a journo myself I doubt any journalist covering this case from the beginning isn't to some extent emotionally invested at this point - theyre not superhuman and also I don't think a person totally lacking in empathy would make a good reporter.

I think the key is being able to turn it off when you need to. Usually when your covering a horrific story you are operating on adrenalin. Its only later when you're finished you process what you've seen or heard. I have a feeling it's the same for paramedics and police - they have to be clinical when theyre doing their job but that doesn't mean they aren't later affected by it.

 

[fruity]

A couple of things. People emotionally invested in the case should not be on the job. Period. It stops them from doing their job. Second, I doubt that what happened to Jill was worst than what happened in the.case of Anita Cobby, the bodies in the Harrell or Claremont. Assuming this us the case then I am wondering about the purpose of the briefing.

I don't know the details of what happened to any of those victims. Are there links that aren't too gruesome?

 

[LeoBear]

Just my opinion but as a journo myself I doubt any journalist covering this case from the beginning isn't to some extent emotionally invested at this point - theyre not superhuman and also I don't think a person totally lacking in empathy would make a good reporter ...

With respect, there is a significant difference between having an emotional investment in a case and "totally lacking in empathy". A number of professions require you to be at arms length. And in my opinion - with good reason.

 

[LeoBear]

I don't know the details of what happened to any of those victims. Are there links that aren't too gruesome?

Not really, Sweety. They were all horrific!

 

[BreakingNews]

With respect, there is a significant difference between having an emotional investment in a case and "totally lacking in empathy". A number of professions require you to be at arms length. And in my opinion - with good reason.

LeoBear, what exactly are you saying here? Being at arms length does not equal totally lacking in empathy. Professionalism is just that. A professional approach to your work.

In smaller regions there is not the luxury of opting out if you have an emotional investment in a case. You still maintain your professionalism. Doesn't mean you are heartless. You just have to do your job.

 

[Angeline]

Could the off-the-record briefing be held because the case was so high profile and police were worried about stirring up the public with the details and affecting the trial?

 

[Alice Bernadette]

Not really, Sweety. They were all horrific!

LeoBear - I know about Anita. I'm sure I don't know every detail but I read the book about her murder Someone Else's Daughter. Her murder was horrific. I have never heard any details about the Claremont murders. Nothing has been released. There is no information about how Jane and Ciara were killed. Unfortunately Sarah Spier's body has never been found. I live in Perth and was here when these murders occurred. Everything has been kept very quiet. Maybe you have heard something through the grapevine? They have also sealed information on the Greenough murders. I've been a true crime buff for years and have read about all sorts of grisly murders so I can't imagine why in Australia things are kept so secretive. I can understand Claremont because it is unsolved. Maybe it is being sensitive to the family. At least in Anita's case the creeps won't get out but in the Greenough case Bill Mitchell is up for parole next year. I can't imagine they'll let him out though.

 

[BreakingNews]

With respect, there is a significant difference between having an emotional investment in a case and "totally lacking in empathy". A number of professions require you to be at arms length. And in my opinion - with good reason.

LeoBear sweetie, don't underestimate the professionalism of people. What do you think happens in regional and remote areas of Australia???

 

[LeoBear]

Could the off-the-record briefing be held because the case was so high profile and police were worried about stirring up the public with the details and affecting the trial?

I agree with this assessment. The release of the CCTV material was already a risk. I suspect the police didn't want a media circus to follow.

 

[LeoBear]

LeoBear - I know about Anita. I'm sure I don't know every detail but I read the book about her murder Someone Else's Daughter. Her murder was horrific. I have never heard any details about the Claremont murders. Nothing has been released. There is no information about how Jane and Ciara were killed. Unfortunately Sarah Spier's body has never been found. I live in Perth and was here when these murders occurred. Everything has been kept very quiet. Maybe you have heard something through the grapevine? They have also sealed information on the Greenough murders. I've been a true crime buff for years and have read about all sorts of grisly murders so I can't imagine why in Australia things are kept so secretive. I can understand Claremont because it is unsolved. Maybe it is being sensitive to the family. At least in Anita's case the creeps won't get out but in the Greenough case Bill Mitchell is up for parole next year. I can't imagine they'll let him out though.

I am old enough to remember the Anita Cobby murder and the community outcry - including bringing back the death penalty. I haven't read the book but I was going out with a journalist at the time. I won't go into details but the stuff he told me was horrific. I think all of Australia wanted those boys executed outside the courthouse. The thought of them ever being released makes me physically sick - as does the thought of them being afforded rights and privileges they never extended to their victim.

 

[alioop]

Does abduction mean moved when alive? Charges of rape & murder, why not abduction? Jill must have been killed in that lane way then removed.
Allioop may know?

I had a look at the Victorian law on abduction and it does seem to me that the person would have to be alive to be "abducted" because it is about being taken against the person's will. I think the moment Jill was grabbed that she was "abducted" but as soon as she was deceased she was no longer "abducted" at that point as she could no longer exercise will. That is where interference of a corpse crime becomes relevant, such as in the Allison Baden-Clay case where her husband has been charged with her murder and interference with a corpse by moving her body to the creek.

How the police determine the charges, it seems to me that they usually take the most serious offences and charge the person with those. So rape and murder charges are the most serious charges but I am sure they could charge AB with further offences if they thought it would increase a jail term at the end of the day.

Speaking generally, something that really bothers me is that it seems to be the norm that judges set prison terms for the convictions on separate charges to be served concurrently. So say a person is sentenced to 8 years for rape and 15 years for murder, concurrent sentences mean the person will only serve a total of 15 years. I think that it is wrong and I just don't get it. It is like they have got away with the lesser crime.

 

[Alice Bernadette]

I am old enough to remember the Anita Cobby murder and the community outcry - including bringing back the death penalty. I haven't read the book but I was going out with a journalist at the time. I won't go into details but the stuff he told me was horrific. I think all of Australia wanted those boys executed outside the courthouse. The thought of them ever being released makes me physically sick - as does the thought of them being afforded rights and privileges they never extended to their victim.

I agree LeoBear. I remember Anita as well. I don't think the book fully tells all the details but what is in there is horrific enough. They were all completely evil and I'm glad they will never be released.

 

[DrWatson]

Speaking generally, something that really bothers me is that it seems to be the norm that judges set prison terms for the convictions on separate charges to be served concurrently. So say a person is sentenced to 8 years for rape and 15 years for murder, concurrent sentences mean the person will only serve a total of 15 years. I think that it is wrong and I just don't get it. It is like they have got away with the lesser crime.

+1 Ali - I'm with you 100% on that one...! I have always failed to see the logic of concurrent sentences. They should be sequential. And some crimes should have no parole possibility - the nature of those crimes has already offset the so-called "good behaviour" in jail.

 

[SandyGG]

Speaking generally, something that really bothers me is that it seems to be the norm that judges set prison terms for the convictions on separate charges to be served concurrently. So say a person is sentenced to 8 years for rape and 15 years for murder, concurrent sentences mean the person will only serve a total of 15 years. I think that it is wrong and I just don't get it. It is like they have got away with the lesser crime.[/QUOTE]

In Qld, where murder has a mandatory life sentence, I've noticed that although other sentences may be served concurrently, the non-parole period is much higher (if ever). So, a rapist/murderer will effectively serve a much longer sentence than a "simple" murderer.

I think that Qld has, with its controversial Dangerous Prisoners act, also ensured that the many unreformed sex offenders will never be released or under very strict conditions. I do know of a case where a rapist/murderer is unlikely to be given parole in Qld because as a murderer (not sentenced for rape) they cannot be classified under the Dangerous Prisoners act for sex offenders. As a known sex offender they cannot in Qld be moved to a lower security prison by law and so graduate to parole and release.

I have known of a few offenders at "Her Majesty's pleasure" indefinitely for multiple murder and other serial crimes. Not sure if its still used anymore. They are never given parole but could be released potentially.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

I had a look at the Victorian law on abduction and it does seem to me that the person would have to be alive to be "abducted" because it is about being taken against the person's will. I think the moment Jill was grabbed that she was "abducted" but as soon as she was deceased she was no longer "abducted" at that point as she could no longer exercise will. That is where interference of a corpse crime becomes relevant, such as in the Allison Baden-Clay case where her husband has been charged with her murder and interference with a corpse by moving her body to the creek.

How the police determine the charges, it seems to me that they usually take the most serious offences and charge the person with those. So rape and murder charges are the most serious charges but I am sure they could charge AB with further offences if they thought it would increase a jail term at the end of the day.

.

The Crimes Act (Victoria) doesn't have an equivalent offence to the Qld 'interference with a corpse' which GBC was charged with. In the Vic legislation it refers to doing other things to a corpse which don't need detailing here.

 

[SandyGG]

Very true. I think that charge has caused alot of confusion as it has such different meanings in various Australian states.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Hi GutFeeling. Media could have come hours and hours after the body was found. It is my understanding that the coroner often travels with the police and the crime scene is thoughly searched prior to the body being removed. Removing the body is usually one of the last things done at a crime scene.

Exactly - coroner has to give permission for the body to be removed.

 

[SandyGG]

Agree with Alioop that police often seem to just charge the most serious offences. A Prosecutor once explained to me that other aggravating factors that could have been additional charges would be introduced into evidence anyway as part of the more serious offence. I guess it can be the other way too. I.e more serious charges dropped but lesser charges aggravated.
I was thinking that in Jill's case, whether she was abducted or not, they might not bother to pursue that but rather it would aggravate murder/rape charges when entered as part of the evidence.

 

[alioop]

In Qld, where murder has a mandatory life sentence, I've noticed that although other sentences may be served concurrently, the non-parole period is much higher (if ever). So, a rapist/murderer will effectively serve a much longer sentence than a "simple" murder".

Sandy GG, I agree with your comments. But I still think that even though non- parole period may be set higher for concurrent sentencing, the average convicted criminal still spends less time in prison overall than what the total of the sentences is.