Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by Salem, Nov 23, 2012.
Please continue here.
Information from Thread 1:
Hi everyone. Good to see a new thread up and running. Not much happening in MSM with this case at the moment. Just a waiting game I feel.
P.S Salem: Thanks for bringing over my post of Sarah's obituary tribute!
Re. the flats in Hawthorn, commission flats and houses are located in all different suburbs. Just because the flats are in a wealthy area, the tenants are not - thus those things being dumped out the front. I lived in a beautiful area and we had a single commission house around the corner that frequently had smashed windows, furniture out the front, rubbish everywhere, they pulled it down, built a new one and the same things happened.
Of course, not everyone in these flats/houses are like that but just because they are in Hawthorn doesn't mean there wasn't some tenants that weren't feral - jeepers one harbored a killer with them!
One of the original news stories from the day of SH's arrest stated that the Hawthorn address was a retirement village - but I haven't seen that confirmed since. I recall thinking that maybe he was hiding with a parent ...
Jenelle your avatar makes me smile every time I see it - I still pause to watch the silly dance
those things dumped out the front could have been for the coucils hard rubbish collection, some councils have a set day goods must be out by, others have a at call hard rubbish pick up. They could also have been dumped by someone who has moved out.
I keep trying to post in this thread and it won't let me, maybe this will work??
I hope we get some more info soon!
MSM said he was staying with a 'friend, one of the few he had'. I wondered if it could be his step-dad. I think one of the news photos showed a sign in the front of the flats saying the building had been converted to retirement accomodation.
Google map image Dec 2009.
Blue sign says building being upgraded to older persons housing estate.
I sometimes wonder if we are going to hear about accomplices/accessories soon.
From what I can find on the internet, the police are generally obliged to not name people brought in for questioning (like the 2 men brought in and then released) unless they are charged. An arrest is not enough to name someone generally (unless there is a public danger in not doing so). And the media honours this - apparently for fear of libel lawsuits.
So it makes me wonder why AW’s name got leaked/printed in the media as one of the two men questioned. The police have never confirmed that it was AW as far as I can see, but MSM felt comfortable enough to say that they ‘believed’ it was him without fear of a libel lawsuit from AW. Why was he not given the same privacy as the 32 year old from Tarneit, and all the people that must have been interviewed by now?
They haven't charged him yet ... makes me think that it may not be AW that they are trying to get to …. maybe he has privately agreed to be named like this to help shake someone else up?
Can't understand why his privacy was allowed to be breached.
This is a UK link, couldn't find an Oz one, but judging by typical police/media behaviour the privacy rules followed here in Oz appear to follow along the same lines
Pretty much the same here, normally not named unless charged, but nothing in legislation covers the period between arrest and charge. Once charged, there is discretion for the magistrate or judge to close proceedings and/or grant suppression orders.
There are possible remedies in defamation and tort. However, if the material published is substantially true, that will be a complete defence to defamation.
Info below is for Victoria, other states' legislation is substantially the same.
Defamation Act 2005 (Victoria) - SECT 25
Defence of justification
25. Defence of justification
It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant
proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the
plaintiff complains are substantially true.
Thanks .... knew that if anyone on here would know it would be you!
To me that says that if they were very confident in a suspect's complicity, they could take the measure of allowing/enabling him to be named (presumably for some benefit to their case) knowing that they fully expected charges to be laid in the future.
From 'The Australian'
(just when you thought it couldn't get worse.)
It could also be that reporters recognised AJW from FB photos and/or at Point Cook when he was assisting police - (and they didn't know who #2 was). :twocents:
"..... and just in case we are smearing an innocent person's character, we'll chuck in a disclaimer ...." Ha!
Wonder if that would hold up in court?
They would have checked with legals before printing. Defence would be substantial truth - he was arrested, he was renting the house.
Disclaimer covers them from anyone implying anything more than that from the article.
Probably took him a while to work out his foolproof plan for getting out of the mess he had made ...... poor Sarah!
in SH "da gang" facebook pic, theres a fellow initials DA, has anyone any thoughts about this.
Separate names with a comma.