Current Terence Darrell Kelly - Abduction of 4yo Blowholes Shacks WA #2

Remove this Banner Ad

Flash of power

Club Legend
Aug 19, 2013
1,687
1,972
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Some good points.

Really a toss of a coin from a defense perspective whether they seek a judge only or jury trial. Toss of the coin also whether the judge permits a jury trial given the publicity of the case - accordingly for this reason the prosecution may likely want a jury trial.

An insanity plea is pretty much off the table now, given there are witnesses, who I assume will testify if needed, who claim TK was enquiring on a regular basis about the missing child - he had.
It's one thing to ignore the related TV news, public posters etc. but regularly asking people for updates, without recognizing the gravity of the situation you are in - means you are not insane...

Kelly's defense will therefore, I predict, be mainly based on arguing Cleo's captivity being contextually one of 'care' and not 'danger'..?

Get your popcorn ready.
I'm not sure whether the "enquiring on a regular basis" is a defence or a problem, everyone in that town would have been doing that in every interaction, any defence lawyer will be asserting that - but yeah, bring on the popcorn, I for one am fascinated.
 

deanc

Premiership Player
Jun 13, 2014
3,718
4,871
Waverley
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tasmania
I'm not sure whether the "enquiring on a regular basis" is a defence or a problem, everyone in that town would have been doing that in every interaction, any defence lawyer will be asserting that - but yeah, bring on the popcorn, I for one am fascinated.
My earlier comments in the thread suggested that TK's defence could argue or plausibly deflect the prosecutions claims that TK would of been aware of the gravity of his actions via TV news/newspapers and/or public posters and/or even online FB comments that prove TK 'was not insane' - but since the revelation he regularly asked 3rd parties about the case, his defence simply won't bother pursuing this as part of an 'insanity' type plea...

Also, I've no doubt the police would love to have two things prior to trial. That being the implication of a 3rd person's involvement in this bizarre case and the recovery of the missing sleeping bag.
Main reason is - the prosecution's case revolves around two unreliable witnesses, one is a mentally unstable 36yo man and the other a 4yo girl, also while forensic DNA evidence from the sleeping will also help with the kidnapping charge it could also possibly implicate a 3rd person.

As it stands, the prosecution just have kidnapping (child stealing in this case) and I'm guessing the other unknown charge is 'false imprisonment' as pretty much undeniable charges. NB. any locked door/s is sufficient evidence to proof false imprisonment.

As 'motive' predominately determines 'sentencing', it will be fascinating what the related arguments are from both sides. Also, suggest Kurve consider posting a poll soon for the perpetrator's probable sentencing outcome; 3-5, 5-10, 10-15, 15 above years...?

Need to check my popcorn stock again...
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Kurve

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
17,057
36,685
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
As 'motive' predominately determines 'sentencing', it will be fascinating what the related arguments are from both sides. Also, suggest Kurve consider including posting a poll soon for the perpetrator's probable sentencing outcome; 3-5, 5-10, 10-15, 15 above years...?
We love the polls on the crime board but until we know which way he's going to plead, if it's going to trial and whether it's judge only which makes it much easier, that kind of poll might breach the subjudice rule.

If we want to stay open for the trial if there is one, we need to be careful and patient. :wink:
 

deanc

Premiership Player
Jun 13, 2014
3,718
4,871
Waverley
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tasmania
We love the polls on the crime board but until we know which way he's going to plead, if it's going to trial and whether it's judge only which makes it much easier, that kind of poll might breach the subjudice rule.

If we want to stay open for the trial if there is one, we need to be careful and patient. :wink:
Of course you would include 'acquittal' in the poll to cover all bases...
 

Collie_wobbles

Senior List
Oct 25, 2021
190
436
AFL Club
Collingwood
My earlier comments in the thread suggested that TK's defence could argue or plausibly deflect the prosecutions claims that TK would of been aware of the gravity of his actions via TV news/newspapers and/or public posters and/or even online FB comments that prove TK 'was not insane' - but since the revelation he regularly asked 3rd parties about the case, his defence simply won't bother pursuing this as part of an 'insanity' type plea...

Also, I've no doubt the police would love to have two things prior to trial. That being the implication of a 3rd person's involvement in this bizarre case and the recovery of the missing sleeping bag.
Main reason is - the prosecution's case revolves around two unreliable witnesses, one is a mentally unstable 36yo man and the other a 4yo girl, also while forensic DNA evidence from the sleeping will also help with the kidnapping charge it could also possibly implicate a 3rd person.

As it stands, the prosecution just have kidnapping (child stealing in this case) and I'm guessing the other unknown charge is 'false imprisonment' as pretty much undeniable charges. NB. any locked door/s is sufficient evidence to proof false imprisonment.

As 'motive' predominately determines 'sentencing', it will be fascinating what the related arguments are from both sides. Also, suggest Kurve consider posting a poll soon for the perpetrator's probable sentencing outcome; 3-5, 5-10, 10-15, 15 above years...?

Need to check my popcorn stock again...
Why would a charge of false imprisonment need to be suppressed though? IMO the unknown charge has to be something to do with SA
 

deanc

Premiership Player
Jun 13, 2014
3,718
4,871
Waverley
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tasmania
I'd take a guess it might be an 'indecent assault' type charge for now and which could be expected in the circumstances
You could be right - I merely suspect it's 'false imprisonment' as that is usually the 2nd main charge after kidnapping, as it's also usually undeniable. I also note the 2nd (suppressed) charge was made before police phycologists had spoken to Cleo, so it's unlikely to be related to assault..?

It's is also likely that TK has claimed he doesn't consider Cleo's captivity in anyway a form of 'imprisonment', as well there being no evidence that Cleo was physically restrained (assumed), hence the reluctance to publicize the charge until other supporting evidence is known...
 

one eyed spy

All Australian
Feb 11, 2018
987
3,216
AFL Club
Sydney
Is there a real difference between trial by jury and trial by judge?
Absolutely massive difference. Judge decision is solely based upon the evidence & the letter of the law. Every aspect raised in trial is backed by full written reasons explaining the decision they arrived at & able to be challenged, particularly if they erred anywhere in the process.

Jury trial is a group of 12 random people, irrespective of prejudices, background or upbringing & who usually have little real understanding of the law, who have to sit through a trial & make a decision as to whether someone is guilty or not based on whatever the hell they choose to base their decision on without any requirement whatsoever to provide reasons or any explanation as to what they considered before arriving at it. Plenty of jurors just go along with whatever another more vocal or forceful juror suggests, or one they assume has more knowledge than they do about the issue at hand. They can decide your fate solely based on the way you look if they choose to without considering anything else at all. So long as they spend at least 2 hours in the jury room before returning with a verdict, nothing is asked of them in regards to how they arrived at that decision. They often get it wrong & there's nothing that can be done about it when they do. If it's an incorrect guilty verdict the only option the judge has is to try to mitigate the punishment as best they can at sentencing. Or they have no option but to let you go regardless of their own beliefs if a not guilty verdict is returned.
Plenty of people go to jail who shouldn't & plenty of people get off who shouldn't, all at the hands of juries, who in my opinion should never be tasked with the responsibility of making those decisions to begin with.

I'd take a judge only trial any day irrespective of the fact that I wouldn't ever expect a jury to make any adverse assumptions about me based on the way I present. I still wouldn't trust them even if the odds were fully stacked in my favour.

I'd prefer that everyone was judged solely upon the case presented against them & by someone who has a wealth of experience in the field, not a bunch of randoms where there's no guarantee they can even understand the proceedings.
 

sprockets

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 15, 2004
5,460
9,253
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Absolutely massive difference. Judge decision is solely based upon the evidence & the letter of the law. Every aspect raised in trial is backed by full written reasons explaining the decision they arrived at & able to be challenged, particularly if they erred anywhere in the process.

Jury trial is a group of 12 random people, irrespective of prejudices, background or upbringing & who usually have little real understanding of the law, who have to sit through a trial & make a decision as to whether someone is guilty or not based on whatever the hell they choose to base their decision on without any requirement whatsoever to provide reasons or any explanation as to what they considered before arriving at it. Plenty of jurors just go along with whatever another more vocal or forceful juror suggests, or one they assume has more knowledge than they do about the issue at hand. They can decide your fate solely based on the way you look if they choose to without considering anything else at all. So long as they spend at least 2 hours in the jury room before returning with a verdict, nothing is asked of them in regards to how they arrived at that decision. They often get it wrong & there's nothing that can be done about it when they do. If it's an incorrect guilty verdict the only option the judge has is to try to mitigate the punishment as best they can at sentencing. Or they have no option but to let you go regardless of their own beliefs if a not guilty verdict is returned.
Plenty of people go to jail who shouldn't & plenty of people get off who shouldn't, all at the hands of juries, who in my opinion should never be tasked with the responsibility of making those decisions to begin with.

I'd take a judge only trial any day irrespective of the fact that I wouldn't ever expect a jury to make any adverse assumptions about me based on the way I present. I still wouldn't trust them even if the odds were fully stacked in my favour.

I'd prefer that everyone was judged solely upon the case presented against them & by someone who has a wealth of experience in the field, not a bunch of randoms where there's no guarantee they can even understand the proceedings.
It's not quite as bad as you make out. Juries are instructed to make their decision based only on what's presented at court. There's discussion in the jury room about facts presented and the whys and wherefores of what they mean and those that hold out for no good reason usually come around. In the vast majority of cases they get it right.
 

austcrime

Debutant
Oct 22, 2021
70
146
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Absolutely massive difference. Judge decision is solely based upon the evidence & the letter of the law. Every aspect raised in trial is backed by full written reasons explaining the decision they arrived at & able to be challenged, particularly if they erred anywhere in the process.

Jury trial is a group of 12 random people, irrespective of prejudices, background or upbringing & who usually have little real understanding of the law, who have to sit through a trial & make a decision as to whether someone is guilty or not based on whatever the hell they choose to base their decision on without any requirement whatsoever to provide reasons or any explanation as to what they considered before arriving at it. Plenty of jurors just go along with whatever another more vocal or forceful juror suggests, or one they assume has more knowledge than they do about the issue at hand. They can decide your fate solely based on the way you look if they choose to without considering anything else at all. So long as they spend at least 2 hours in the jury room before returning with a verdict, nothing is asked of them in regards to how they arrived at that decision. They often get it wrong & there's nothing that can be done about it when they do. If it's an incorrect guilty verdict the only option the judge has is to try to mitigate the punishment as best they can at sentencing. Or they have no option but to let you go regardless of their own beliefs if a not guilty verdict is returned.
Plenty of people go to jail who shouldn't & plenty of people get off who shouldn't, all at the hands of juries, who in my opinion should never be tasked with the responsibility of making those decisions to begin with.

I'd take a judge only trial any day irrespective of the fact that I wouldn't ever expect a jury to make any adverse assumptions about me based on the way I present. I still wouldn't trust them even if the odds were fully stacked in my favour.

I'd prefer that everyone was judged solely upon the case presented against them & by someone who has a wealth of experience in the field, not a bunch of randoms where there's no guarantee they can even understand the proceedings.
Very good, (and sobering) summary ...

Reminds me of this joke/meme..

"Nothing could be worse than being judged by 12; who were generally speaking so dumb; that they did not know how to get out of Jury Duty in the first place" ...

haha ....

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 

Likeamystery

All Australian
Aug 11, 2019
989
2,758
AFL Club
West Coast
Very good, (and sobering) summary ...

Reminds me of this joke/meme..

"Nothing could be worse than being judged by 12; who were generally speaking so dumb; that they did not know how to get out of Jury Duty in the first place" ...

haha ....

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Like most of us, I've been called up for jury duty a couple of times, I noticed there were a lot of aged pensioners who attended. One of the jurors giggled when embarrassing matters were discussed. Another juror kept mentioning a different case where three men had been charged with rape and proven not guilty and when it came time to deliberate someone else sat on the fence, because he didn't have the courage to make a decision. When you think about it, it's probably mainly unemployed people who make up the majority of jurors which is not good for the public. I think much better with a judge only.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,843
21,567
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
We love the polls on the crime board but until we know which way he's going to plead, if it's going to trial and whether it's judge only which makes it much easier, that kind of poll might breach the subjudice rule.

If we want to stay open for the trial if there is one, we need to be careful and patient. :wink:
The way I see it I would be shocked if the accused doesn't plead guilty and attempt to negotiate a deal with the judge. Putting everyone through a trial does nobody any favors.
 

Kurve

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
17,057
36,685
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
The way I see it I would be shocked if the accused doesn't plead guilty and attempt to negotiate a deal with the judge. Putting everyone through a trial does nobody any favors.
I think he'll plead guilty as well, I just can't see any kind of defence that might be raised to make any difference to severity of penalty. His best chance is to plead guilt and cooperate.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,843
21,567
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
Its obviously an open/shut case so a quick hearing with a judge to determine an appropriate sentence is probably best for all so the little girl and her family get justice.

There needs to be an investigation into what lead Terrence down this path to minimise the chances of another offender committing the same or similar offenses in the future.
 

deanc

Premiership Player
Jun 13, 2014
3,718
4,871
Waverley
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tasmania
Like most of us, I've been called up for jury duty a couple of times, I noticed there were a lot of aged pensioners who attended. One of the jurors giggled when embarrassing matters were discussed. Another juror kept mentioning a different case where three men had been charged with rape and proven not guilty and when it came time to deliberate someone else sat on the fence, because he didn't have the courage to make a decision. When you think about it, it's probably mainly unemployed people who make up the majority of jurors which is not good for the public. I think much better with a judge only.
The quality of juries has been debated ever since they were first derived in the 11th century, when neighbourhood witnesses were called upon - sure, some of the modern day criticisms are often valid, but I'm not sure what would/should replace this form of perceived justice with a group of your 'peers' judging your guilt or innocence.

I was called once and on the way out the door to the preliminary selection I got a surprising call from an old family friend 'a former barrister' who had been told of this. "What are wearing" he asks. "Oh, do you want to be on this jury?" "No, not really", I respond. "OK, get back inside and change into your best suit, something you'd wear at a wedding or funeral and set your phone with alarm reminders every 15 minutes", he advises...
I was one of the first excluded in the selection process.
 
Last edited:

Taylor

Community Leader
Jul 16, 2009
57,024
66,197
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
The quality of juries has been debated ever since they were first derived in the 11th century, when neighbourhood witnesses were called upon - sure, some of the modern day criticisms are often valid, but I'm not sure what would/should replace this form of perceived justice with a group of your 'peers' judging your guilt or innocence.
Weren't they brought in so that rich, upper class people weren't judged by poor common folk - hence of your peers?
 

deanc

Premiership Player
Jun 13, 2014
3,718
4,871
Waverley
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tasmania
Weren't they brought in so that rich, upper class people weren't judged by poor common folk - hence of your peers?
I haven't studied the history of juries in much detail, but yes, that was and remains the mandate, when in actual fact it's not often not the reality.

Despite what you see on TV, most defense legal counsels avoid, where they can, choosing 'professional people', either active or retired in these jury selection hearings - as it's much easier to sell their suppositions/arguments to those with respectfully moderate educations.
Although in civil cases/white collar crime the opposite can be true - whereas you can't expect a bricklayer to understand the complexities of joint directorships or silent partners used to defraud or embezzle company or investors funds...
Bricklayer; "bloke looks guilty, got a s**t hair cut, beady eyes and probably barracks for the Bombers!"...
 
Last edited:

Likeamystery

All Australian
Aug 11, 2019
989
2,758
AFL Club
West Coast
The quality of juries has been debated ever since they were first derived in the 11th century, when neighbourhood witnesses were called upon - sure, some of the modern day criticisms are often valid, but I'm not sure what would/should replace this form of perceived justice with a group of your 'peers' judging your guilt or innocence.

I was called once and on the way out the door to the preliminary selection I got a surprising call from an old family friend 'a former barrister' who had been told of this. "What are wearing" he asks. "Oh, do you want to be on this jury?" "No, not really", I respond. "OK, get back inside and change into your best suit, something you'd wear at a wedding or funeral and set your phone with alarm reminders every 15 minutes", he advises...
I was one of the first excluded in the selection process.
At jury duty I noticed people dressed-up were challenged, yet, older people wearing casual jumpers were readily accepted. There was a certain type of person they were looking for.
 

Dogs_R_Us

Space Traveller
May 3, 2001
18,778
20,611
Sirius - the Dogstar
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
The quality of juries has been debated ever since they were first derived in the 11th century, when neighbourhood witnesses were called upon - sure, some of the modern day criticisms are often valid, but I'm not sure what would/should replace this form of perceived justice with a group of your 'peers' judging your guilt or innocence.

I was called once and on the way out the door to the preliminary selection I got a surprising call from an old family friend 'a former barrister' who had been told of this. "What are wearing" he asks. "Oh, do you want to be on this jury?" "No, not really", I respond. "OK, get back inside and change into your best suit, something you'd wear at a wedding or funeral and set your phone with alarm reminders every 15 minutes", he advises...
I was one of the first excluded in the selection process.
These days there's almost no chance of finding 12 people who have never heard of the case, never seen the tv reports, read the news, formed opinions. Even if people think they are capable of reaching "informed" opinion based on evidence, can consider reasonable doubt, and are impartial when it comes to race, will have preconceived ideas that they may not even be consciously aware of.
 

JWS2019

Team Captain
Nov 30, 2019
493
887
AFL Club
Collingwood
These days there's almost no chance of finding 12 people who have never heard of the case, never seen the tv reports, read the news, formed opinions. Even if people think they are capable of reaching "informed" opinion based on evidence, can consider reasonable doubt, and are impartial when it comes to race, will have preconceived ideas that they may not even be consciously aware of.
Layman’s terms to me is that the judge even if they think you are guilty must apply the law at all times which can a benefit or a hinderance depending on the situation.

Jury should take everything onboard and question legal terms they don’t understand but ultimately it’s there decision based on the evidence and opinion?, benefit or hinderance being they only have a slight understanding of the law and opportunity to ask questions.
 

austcrime

Debutant
Oct 22, 2021
70
146
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Like most of us, I've been called up for jury duty a couple of times, I noticed there were a lot of aged pensioners who attended. One of the jurors giggled when embarrassing matters were discussed. Another juror kept mentioning a different case where three men had been charged with rape and proven not guilty and when it came time to deliberate someone else sat on the fence, because he didn't have the courage to make a decision. When you think about it, it's probably mainly unemployed people who make up the majority of jurors which is not good for the public. I think much better with a judge only.
My standard response if called onto Jury Duty...

"You really want to pick me? ??"

"Just warning you - may not be a wise decision; ...because my belief is that if the defendant has already made it through the Committal; then they are already "guilty as" ... Not to mention the DPP taking it to court in the first place"

Then if the selectors really insist - I will warn them again...

"I'm telling ya; not a good idea ... (see above) ... and even if the majority of my fellow jury members think the defendant naybe 'innocent' ... I will argue them down into a 'Guilty your Honour' verdict" ....

Na, ...best leave me to my coffee and donuts... I'm not what you are looking for ....

aka no DD for me ...

haha ... true ...

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 

austcrime

Debutant
Oct 22, 2021
70
146
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
... and while we are all Off Topic for a bit....

This posted by someone made my blood run cold....
#### Another juror kept mentioning a different case where three men had been charged with rape and proven not guilty and when it came time to deliberate #####

Who the Freak was your Jury Foreman on your trail ???

The thing should have been aborted right then and there....

Did tbe Foreman notify the judge about this matter?

My understanding is that a jury can and must only weigh up; discuss and consider the evidence and facts that have been presented to them in the courtroom pertaining to the case that they have been sworn in for ... OMG !!!

Not some 'facts' or otherwise; that may have been part of some other defendant's trial. ... be that "as seen on TV" or anything else; in the courtroom next door - or what happened on Ch9 ACA.....

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

metic

All Australian
Nov 20, 2017
751
1,751
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Like most of us, I've been called up for jury duty a couple of times, I noticed there were a lot of aged pensioners who attended. One of the jurors giggled when embarrassing matters were discussed. Another juror kept mentioning a different case where three men had been charged with rape and proven not guilty and when it came time to deliberate someone else sat on the fence, because he didn't have the courage to make a decision. When you think about it, it's probably mainly unemployed people who make up the majority of jurors which is not good for the public. I think much better with a judge only.
"When you think about it, it's probably mainly unemployed people who make up the majority of jurors which is not good for the public."

Hmm not sure about that.
Surely the chosen ones are employed!?


Sent from my SM-J320ZN using Tapatalk
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad