Solved Malcolm McCusker will bid to clear Sharon Masons sentenced murderer in Perth WA

sprockets

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
2,941
Likes
3,528
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Sure:

Greer_Appeal_1.png


What do I think? I think he did it. I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me otherwise, or even leads to doubt that it was him.

EDIT: BTW I think I got the upper and lower portions mixed up in my previous post.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sprockets

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
2,941
Likes
3,528
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Seems solid.

Laid out in black and white. The body was in one piece and in place
Check point 3 below of the grounds for the appeal. Seems to me defense had a few bob each way with their arguments over the years. "No, or insufficient, evidence" as to the body of the deceased being divided into two pieces at the time of burial. Later on it changes to 'is a half each of two different people'.

Greer_Appeal_2.png
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Posts
239
Likes
505
AFL Club
Richmond
He is the retired military intelligence analyst quoted in “the Devils Garden” who reckoned he had an IQ in the top 5% in Australia.

Which would be in the 140-150 range.
BenJones84 has spelt bodies as "bodys". High IQ and ego would suggest he would edit that post.

Please post in the correct thread also.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Posts
282
Likes
655
AFL Club
Sydney
The crux of the prosecutions case was that the body was found with a mask that belonged to Greer & the area was bituminized soon after she disappeared therefore making it impossible for anyone else to have buried her after the time Greer left. That is what the defence were working with & if this can be proved to be untrue, I think both his trials would have focused on totally different things.

Without seeing the trial transcripts its impossible to know how all the evidence was presented & how many other inconsistencies appear that werent addressed. Keeping in mind too that the appeal was from the first trial that convicted him of wilful murder but the second trial convicted only of murder & there had been significant media coverage of his prior crimes and the allegations from his ex wife had all been published.

I found the evidence described in the appeal so piecemeal and inconsistent that it surprised me so many issues I thought were obvious didnt appear to be addressed at all, but in reality we aren't reading the sworn evidence exactly as provided in trial for the most part, except where it has been quoted directly. Its the judges summary of the portions of the trial that related to the particular points of appeal only so hardly provides an entire story.

Its easy to pick one aspect of it and claim if that appears ok, the info was solid but how do you address a body being recovered that it is now being said may have been stored separately and buried at different times, when the belief was that the entire area was inaccessible at any other time so it appears to be an impossibility. You cant & as far as we know from the appeal docs, it wasnt addressed at the time.

If you look at the testimony given of the mask, 4 different people give 4 different versions of where it was.
The blue bags that Melsy mentioned were actually written into the post mortem by Dr Margoulis who claimed the mask had been found in a blue bag along with bones. In person she agreed the bags were white not blue & its location is disputed by 3 others who each gave differing evidence of where the mask was. As it was, no one could testify where the mask was actually found because it wasnt noticed before it had been loaded into the truck which was completely filled & left the scene. It was then returned and tipped out & the testimony given is 4 different accounts relating to where it was in the pile. There was plenty of things relating to the testimony of Dr Margoulis that left questions IMO that dont seem to be questioned yet makes no sense to me, even the testimony of the person taking photos at her direction gave evidence that threw what they said into question.

As it was, less than half of the spine was recovered all up & as far as I can tell, one small bone was said to have existing old damage & that was the only evidence that could connect the upper and lower torso & according to Beatnicked, none was tested to ensure it all belonged to Sharon Mason.
I think it all leaves so many areas in dispute we have to wait until the case is brought back into the spotlight. Until then, picking apart the small tidbits we have access to now is useless for determining the truth.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Posts
282
Likes
655
AFL Club
Sydney
After reading the appeal judgement the overall impression I was left with was that the judges didn't have faith in the conviction either due to the lack of evidence & there was a hell of a lot of things they pointed out that could have been addressed to alleviate some of their doubts, but weren't. I think they were probably relieved they found valid points of appeal & were able to order a new trial.

I have no idea what the consensus is regarding the defence Greer received, but to make a determination after reading that document only, it doesnt seem to be thorough at all but which may be an entirely unfair assessment in reality.

Point is, you cant take a snippet and make a judgement call about its entirety & least of all when it comes to his innocence or guilt. Particularly relevant when you have several people who are well respected in legal & scientific fraternities now speaking out in his defence & we also have someone here whom I assume, has brought our attention to some of the same issues these people are now aware of which is causing them to question the entire case. In these circumstances, I see little relevance in any conclusions made by anyone if they're based upon an allegedly flawed representation of the real facts.
 

sprockets

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
2,941
Likes
3,528
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
After reading the appeal judgement the overall impression I was left with was that the judges didn't have faith in the conviction either due to the lack of evidence & there was a hell of a lot of things they pointed out that could have been addressed to alleviate some of their doubts, but weren't. I think they were probably relieved they found valid points of appeal & were able to order a new trial.

I have no idea what the consensus is regarding the defence Greer received, but to make a determination after reading that document only, it doesnt seem to be thorough at all but which may be an entirely unfair assessment in reality.

Point is, you cant take a snippet and make a judgement call about its entirety & least of all when it comes to his innocence or guilt. Particularly relevant when you have several people who are well respected in legal & scientific fraternities now speaking out in his defence & we also have someone here whom I assume, has brought our attention to some of the same issues these people are now aware of which is causing them to question the entire case. In these circumstances, I see little relevance in any conclusions made by anyone if they're based upon an allegedly flawed representation of the real facts.
The eminent people speaking out in his defence are speaking out due to the evidence given or not given at his trial. None as far as I know are saying he's innocent. The other point I'm trying to make is that there are experts with an opinion and other experts with a different opinion. Remember, the people that gave us their opinions in the first trials were experts.
 

Happy Freo

LOL 42 years LOL
Suspended
Joined
Aug 26, 2018
Posts
479
Likes
147
AFL Club
Fremantle
The eminent people speaking out in his defence are speaking out due to the evidence given or not given at his trial. None as far as I know are saying he's innocent. The other point I'm trying to make is that there are experts with an opinion and other experts with a different opinion. Remember, the people that gave us their opinions in the first trials were experts.
Fair enough.

Eminent people supporting Greer include several QC’s and the former Governor of WA.

References have been made to new evidence.

Veracity of experts opinions will be interesting in respect of the original conviction and appeal and what is now known. The Inncocence Project at ECU is continuing onwards towards appeal sources tell me.

Reminiscent of Noel Coward and his powerful supporters regarding the CSK case, which included a former Australian senator, environmental professor and it now appears a former SAS commando and academics studying towards doctorates.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Posts
282
Likes
655
AFL Club
Sydney
The eminent people speaking out in his defence are speaking out due to the evidence given or not given at his trial. None as far as I know are saying he's innocent. The other point I'm trying to make is that there are experts with an opinion and other experts with a different opinion. Remember, the people that gave us their opinions in the first trials were experts.
But my point was that its impossible to know what the testimony would have been or the outcome of any trial would have been if the issues being raised now are relevant and the opinions given were based on the actual set of circumstances as they appeared at the time.
Surely you can agree that points raised and questions asked of anyone in the original trials shouldn't be relied on at all if they were based upon an inaccurate set of facts. The experts testify according to the questions they are asked and their opinions as to what happened are obviously formed with reference to what they believe to be the circumstances at the time. The difference in body condition was mentioned at the time and they may have given the same opinions about the storage of the body we're hearing now too if at the time they knew it could have been buried years apart. They didnt, no one knew that so no one would have asked & even if they did, it would have been dismissed. For that proposition to occur it would mean there was access to bury the body there at different times and that wasnt known to anyone except the police by the looks of it.

I dare say a legal wouldnt usually come out and state their opinion regarding guilt whilst the true case hasn't been presented, but it cant be said that they dont believe he is innocent simply by omission. I would imagine that at the least, their opinion would have to include some doubts regarding his guilt otherwise why would they bother expending any energy towards his case if they thought any miscarriage of justice relating to evidence that was misrepresented or withheld at the time would only lead to the same outcome if the true state of facts had been revealed. Seems it would become an exercise in pointing out flaws in our systems & possible tampering of evidence thats a possibility in every case ever brought to trial, why pick one that they cant change the outcome of & after the person has been released to be their focus. Seems a little pointless to worry about now if it is their opinion that the right person was punished but the route they took to get there was questionable. This case is officially over now afterall.
 

Beatnicked

Team Captain
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
346
Likes
446
AFL Club
West Coast
Same day.

“A teenage friend claimed that on that day, she found Sharon crying in the laneway behind the shops before they both hitchhiked to the city and then to Mundaring Weir with a man in a red sports car.

She told police they were driven back to Perth after the man tried to have sex with Sharon. She said the man dropped her off at the Causeway and that was the last she saw of both of them.“


https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/cr...murder-mystery-that-shook-perth-ng-b88699046z
That is a totally different person and is a witness that came forward on the day Sharon disappeared and made contact with police. The police withheld this information from defense. The police have a recording of this witness and refuse to hand it over.
 

Beatnicked

Team Captain
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
346
Likes
446
AFL Club
West Coast
I've just started reading the appeal judgement delivered in June 1994. It states that the upper and lower parts of the body were found in the same white plastic bag, but it had been torn apart, with the lower half of the body on its way to the tip while the upper half remained at the dig site. It says:

View attachment 598719

It should also be noted that the 'expert' that was of the opinion that half the body had possibly been frozen was hired by the defense team. Now, I've seen enough of trials to know that an 'expert' will give testimony along lines based on who's paying him. The defense team themselves will obviously do the same. When did this 'expert' come up with the 'possible half frozen' theory? 20 years after the murder? Did he do any tests on the body parts to help prove his theory?
And there were errors in petition submissions. Compelling new and fresh evidence was discovered after the final petition a couple of years ago. There was a further failed hearing of an appeal in 1996 that eventually led to the discovery of new and fresh evidence and Sellenger missed that in their involvement over the years.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Beatnicked

Team Captain
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
346
Likes
446
AFL Club
West Coast
I've just started reading the appeal judgement delivered in June 1994. It states that the upper and lower parts of the body were found in the same white plastic bag, but it had been torn apart, with the lower half of the body on its way to the tip while the upper half remained at the dig site. It says:

View attachment 598719

It should also be noted that the 'expert' that was of the opinion that half the body had possibly been frozen was hired by the defense team. Now, I've seen enough of trials to know that an 'expert' will give testimony along lines based on who's paying him. The defense team themselves will obviously do the same. When did this 'expert' come up with the 'possible half frozen' theory? 20 years after the murder? Did he do any tests on the body parts to help prove his theory?
The expert is the former WA chief pathologist. Are you bringing his untarnished reputation into question? His view is supported by other experts not mentioned.
 

Beatnicked

Team Captain
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
346
Likes
446
AFL Club
West Coast
Got to say that is a funny thing to be doing Boxing Day morning at 6am, but hey different strokes for different folks.

Can you post the entire section of the judgement that states the mutilated parts of 14 year old Sharon’s body were found in the same plastic bag.

This misogynistic murderer of a little girl sounds like a real campaigner, doesn’t he?

Hopefully he doesn’t have children of his own.

What do you think Sprockets?
The convicted man did not commit the crime.
 

Beatnicked

Team Captain
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
346
Likes
446
AFL Club
West Coast
I've just started reading the appeal judgement delivered in June 1994. It states that the upper and lower parts of the body were found in the same white plastic bag, but it had been torn apart, with the lower half of the body on its way to the tip while the upper half remained at the dig site. It says:

View attachment 598719

It should also be noted that the 'expert' that was of the opinion that half the body had possibly been frozen was hired by the defense team. Now, I've seen enough of trials to know that an 'expert' will give testimony along lines based on who's paying him. The defense team themselves will obviously do the same. When did this 'expert' come up with the 'possible half frozen' theory? 20 years after the murder? Did he do any tests on the body parts to help prove his theory?
There were other white plastic bags found at the discovery location as well. People need to remember there were major works done in 1987 and that fact was not discovered until 2015. The guy that identified the plastic bags as having come from the shop cooberatted with other witnesses in the court waiting room before he testified. There was also a curtain manufacturer a couple of shops down that would have used similar bags. The bags were not 'white' as in pure white either. Drycleaners also used this type of bag. Family members who had access to the shop and WORKED in the shop also had access to bags.

The new and fresh evidence turns the prior assumptions of this case into total mush.

Who had motive?
 

Beatnicked

Team Captain
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
346
Likes
446
AFL Club
West Coast
Sure:

View attachment 598745

What do I think? I think he did it. I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me otherwise, or even leads to doubt that it was him.

EDIT: BTW I think I got the upper and lower portions mixed up in my previous post.
The shed that the prosecution based their case on and plotted the site from an aerial photo was not the shed or its position at the time of disappearance in 1983. Police withheld evidence they had obtained several days before 1st questioning the accused that verified the shed wasn't the shed in the aerial. We have this evidence.

Police and others stated the lower remains were buried 2 metres under the shed floor. Impossible due to the fact the soil level at time of discovery was at a very similar level in 1983. If the remains had been buried 2 metres under the shed floor the shed would have been floating in the air.

The police and others said the remains were found IN A HOLE in the ground. The forensics person who removed the lower remains stated in his statement that was withheld from defense he had removed remains FROM A PILE of soil. Margolius stated she observed lower remains IN A MOUND of soil. The forensics expert that removed the remains was not mentioned by Margolius or police as attending the scene. We have video of him at scene

We have a photo that shows lower remains IN A PILE OF SOIL and NOT IN THE LOCATION ANYWHERE NEAR WHERE THE SHED WAS IN 1983.

The police said the area behind 600 had been bitumenized in 1985. NO IT WASNT and it had never been bitumenized AT ANYTIME prior to 1992. Cattapan said he removed the shed in 1985 prior to bitumening. NO he didn't. The shed was removed by the next business owner when she sold the business to a 3rd person. The 3rd person bought another shed and placed it in a different position. It is this shed the cops plotted their plans on. All this is now proven and the cops withheld all this from defense even though they knew this before their 1st question of the accused.

Who had motive?
 

sprockets

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
2,941
Likes
3,528
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
The expert is the former WA chief pathologist. Are you bringing his untarnished reputation into question? His view is supported by other experts not mentioned.
Yes I am. BTW, how do you know his reputation is untarnished, or are you just making it up? I'm not saying he's wrong but he's saying the first expert is, so what does that tell you about experts?
 

Beatnicked

Team Captain
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
346
Likes
446
AFL Club
West Coast
Who did the size 8 little girls black shoes belong to that were found very close to lower remains?

Who owned the black clutch bag found in vicinity of lower remains? Not sold in shop or owned by Sharon.

Who owned the pink comb found with lower remains? Never identified as belonging to Sharon.

Who owned the workboot found in the pile of soil with lower remains? Who denied he had seen such workboot Mr Lane? Who is holding this workboot in the photo we have of YOU Mr Lane? The accused did not own workboots. Who worked on a railway line? Where did that mineral come from located in one the deceased's teeth? Who put something in his testimony not required of the question asked of him?

Who denied she had worked in the shop on 19 Feb 1983? Whose husband testified she did work in the shop on that day? Who left Perth in a hurry on 26 Feb 1983 ? Whose ex husband died in December 2017 in ACT? Who has had a recent birthdate?

Who had motive?
 
Last edited:

sprockets

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
2,941
Likes
3,528
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
And there were errors in petition submissions. Compelling new and fresh evidence was discovered after the final petition a couple of years ago. There was a further failed hearing of an appeal in 1996 that eventually led to the discovery of new and fresh evidence and Sellenger missed that in their involvement over the years.
What "compelling new and fresh evidence" was that?
 

sprockets

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
2,941
Likes
3,528
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
There were other white plastic bags found at the discovery location as well. People need to remember there were major works done in 1987 and that fact was not discovered until 2015. The guy that identified the plastic bags as having come from the shop cooberatted with other witnesses in the court waiting room before he testified. There was also a curtain manufacturer a couple of shops down that would have used similar bags. The bags were not 'white' as in pure white either. Drycleaners also used this type of bag. Family members who had access to the shop and WORKED in the shop also had access to bags.

The new and fresh evidence turns the prior assumptions of this case into total mush.

Who had motive?
What new and fresh evidence?

Who had motive? A convicted pedophile would have motive. Yes I know he's apparently innocent of everything that's been thrown at him over the years and he's really an angel...
 

sprockets

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
2,941
Likes
3,528
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
The shed that the prosecution based their case on and plotted the site from an aerial photo was not the shed or its position at the time of disappearance in 1983. Police withheld evidence they had obtained several days before 1st questioning the accused that verified the shed wasn't the shed in the aerial. We have this evidence.

Police and others stated the lower remains were buried 2 metres under the shed floor. Impossible due to the fact the soil level at time of discovery was at a very similar level in 1983. If the remains had been buried 2 metres under the shed floor the shed would have been floating in the air.

The police and others said the remains were found IN A HOLE in the ground. The forensics person who removed the lower remains stated in his statement that was withheld from defense he had removed remains FROM A PILE of soil. Margolius stated she observed lower remains IN A MOUND of soil. The forensics expert that removed the remains was not mentioned by Margolius or police as attending the scene. We have video of him at scene

We have a photo that shows lower remains IN A PILE OF SOIL and NOT IN THE LOCATION ANYWHERE NEAR WHERE THE SHED WAS IN 1983.

The police said the area behind 600 had been bitumenized in 1985. NO IT WASNT and it had never been bitumenized AT ANYTIME prior to 1992. Cattapan said he removed the shed in 1985 prior to bitumening. NO he didn't. The shed was removed by the next business owner when she sold the business to a 3rd person. The 3rd person bought another shed and placed it in a different position. It is this shed the cops plotted their plans on. All this is now proven and the cops withheld all this from defense even though they knew this before their 1st question of the accused.

Who had motive?
I'll believe your evidence when I see it. Who are "We" btw?
 

Beatnicked

Team Captain
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
346
Likes
446
AFL Club
West Coast
What new and fresh evidence?

Who had motive? A convicted pedophile would have motive. Yes I know he's apparently innocent of everything that's been thrown at him over the years and he's really an angel...
He is not a convicted pedophile. There are no convictions related to pedophile activity.
 
Top Bottom