- Sep 2, 2014
- 16,668
- 32,003
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
The use of the initials CG really threw me for a bit!Okay, deemed to be irrelevant 'knot' evidence but interesting nonetheless and it might come up again particularly that he made clotheslines out of Telstra cable.
34 The next objection is to paragraphs 130 - 132. In these paragraphs CG states that the accused is adept at knots and that she first noticed this when he showed her how to release a knot on a tarpaulin. She says that the accused made clotheslines at the house they lived in and that he used cable that was from Telstra.
35 The State says that this evidence is relevant because the complainant in the Karrakatta offences states that she was tied up with a piece of knotted cord that appeared to have been pre-prepared and that had the effect of handcuffs. The apparent implication is that a special ability with knots is a characteristic that is relevant to the identity of perpetrator of the Karrakatta offences. Further, the State suggest that this evidence is capable of establishing such a special ability.
36 The defence say that evidence that on one occasion CG had difficulty untying a knot and that the accused showed her how to do it does not have any probative value in relation to the offences against KG (the Karrakatta complainant). KG does not give any evidence about the expertise or otherwise of her assailant, just that she had trouble getting out of being tied up. The defence say that this can happen for a great many reasons which have nothing to do with the expertise of the person who tied the knot.
37 Neither the evidence of KG nor that of CG establish any special or distinctive ability in tying knots. Far less can it be said that there is any feature established by this evidence that can be said to be clearly present in the Karrakatta offences. The evidence of CG is general and unremarkable and does not reveal any characteristic that is uncommon or capable of being used to distinguish the accused from other people. The fact that the accused was able to demonstrate to CG how to untie a knot in a tarpaulin and set up clotheslines at their house does not make it any more likely that he was the assailant in the Karrakatta offences. The evidence is not relevant.
I actually agree with the defense. Without actual evidence showing what knot was used it's irrelevant (imo) whether he was a professional knotsmen(?) or
To me it sounds like the knot evidence only relates to the Karrakatta crime, so there was no bindings found where CG was found?