Current Abduction of 4yo Blowholes Shacks WA *Terence Kelly Convicted

[Kurve]

MEDIA
Current - The Bunker Part 2

 

[Collie_wobbles]

A Mazda SUV in Mr Kelly’s driveway was also examined and tagged with “evidence” stickers.

The vehicle is not understood to be the car police allege Me Kelly was in when he was arrested 11 days ago.

POLICE PATROL: 24/7 watch on home of Cleo kidnap accused

Police are keeping a close watch over the home of Cleo Smith’s alleged kidnapper, with a dedicated group of officers patrolling the street every hour of the day, seven days a week.

www.google.com.au

Why haven't media reported more about the type of car he was driving when arrested? Would it be under suppression? I would've thought LE would've wanted the public to know exactly what type of car he was using/driving, considering LE were still asking for people who had any footage or interactions with TK in the 18 day's CS was missing to contact LE.

 

[Collie_wobbles]

Legal experts say the images showing the shackles were “entirely prejudicial” and human rights advocates say the use of leg shackles as a routine part of transporting an accused person, particularly an Aboriginal man, should be challenged.

Cleo Smith case: lawyers question whether Terence Kelly can have trial by jury after ‘prejudicial’ photos

WA Department of Justice says use of shackles ‘routine’ to ensure ‘safe and secure movement of prisoners’

www.theguardian.com

Plz...if he wasn't a danger to himself or other's, then the measures taken to transport him and other's safely wouldn't of been needed.

Trial by jury will be impossible considering how large the case was around the world...but won't stop them from having a judge only trial.

Is there a real difference between trial by jury and trial by judge?

 

[Kurve]

Legal experts say the images showing the shackles were “entirely prejudicial” and human rights advocates say the use of leg shackles as a routine part of transporting an accused person, particularly an Aboriginal man, should be challenged.

It was confronting imagery but it wouldn't be safe to put someone with a history of violence and acting out on a small/any plane with loose legs and risk a mid-air altercation where he might best the cops and end up in the cockpit.

Trial by jury will be impossible considering how large the case was around the world...but won't stop them from having a judge only trial.

Is there a real difference between trial by jury and trial by judge?

Agree, this case is more widely known than the Claremont murders trial which was judge only. They're far smarter than most jurors.

 

[Flash of power]

Legal experts say the images showing the shackles were “entirely prejudicial” and human rights advocates say the use of leg shackles as a routine part of transporting an accused person, particularly an Aboriginal man, should be challenged.

Cleo Smith case: lawyers question whether Terence Kelly can have trial by jury after ‘prejudicial’ photos

WA Department of Justice says use of shackles ‘routine’ to ensure ‘safe and secure movement of prisoners’

www.theguardian.com

Plz...if he wasn't a danger to himself or other's, then the measures taken to transport him and other's safely wouldn't of been needed.

Trial by jury will be impossible considering how large the case was around the world...but won't stop them from having a judge only trial.

Is there a real difference between trial by jury and trial by judge?

One has a jury of 12 peers that have to be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt" that he committed the crime charged with. In the Supreme Court I understand it has to be unanimous on murder charges but I think only a majority in other cases.
In a judge only trial the judge alone needs to be convinced.

I would think a judge alone trial in this case might be something the defence council may request as the chance of getting a fair trial by jury, with all the media and emotion around this case would be limited.

It is a gamble to go either way, but it is my understanding that it is the accused's decision - it is in SA anyway as far as I know. Maybe any WA lawyers out there can clarify the situation in WA is I believe it varies from state to state.

 

[Flash of power]

Maybe he threw it into a clothing bin.

Something tells me he might be a bit too smart to choose that option, I don't think he is stupid, weird yes, stupid don't think so.

 

[Kurve]

Why haven't media reported more about the type of car he was driving when arrested? Would it be under suppression? I would've thought LE would've wanted the public to know exactly what type of car he was using/driving, considering LE were still asking for people who had any footage or interactions with TK in the 18 day's CS was missing to contact LE.

Agree, this is real curious and/or they might be thinking they're looking for another car and haven't found forensic evidence of Cleo being in the Mazda yet. Given he had to drive past the police station on the way back to the house, we might think that CCTV there would have caught him. It doesn't seem likely any police station wouldn't have the passing traffic covered by CCTV?

 

[Kurve]

'Dedicated officers' protecting home of Cleo's alleged abductor

A team of officers have been tasked with closely monitoring and protecting the home of Cleo Smith's alleged abductor fearing looters and reprisal attacks.

www.skynews.com.au

 

[deanc]

One has a jury of 12 peers that have to be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt" that he committed the crime charged with. In the Supreme Court I understand it has to be unanimous on murder charges but I think only a majority in other cases.
In a judge only trial the judge alone needs to be convinced.

I would think a judge alone trial in this case might be something the defence council may request as the chance of getting a fair trial by jury, with all the media and emotion around this case would be limited.

It is a gamble to go either way, but it is my understanding that it is the accused's decision - it is in SA anyway as far as I know. Maybe any WA lawyers out there can clarify the situation in WA is I believe it varies from state to state.

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.

 

[Flash of power]

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.

 

[Coolangatta]

I refuse to mention anything about this case to my hairdresser so I don't have to listen to any of her racist bullshit.

 

[deanc]

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...

 

[Kurve]

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.

 

[deanc]

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.

Of course you would include 'acquittal' in the poll to cover all bases...

 

[Collie_wobbles]

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

 

[one eyed spy]

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]

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.

 

[Belushi Brassiere]

I refuse to mention anything about this case to my hairdresser so I don't have to listen to any of her racist bullshit.

Senator Lidia Thorpe is doing her usual not knowing when to shut the freak up. oh, and misspelling black.

 

[austcrime]

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]

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.

 

[Zidane98]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Taylor]

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]

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!"...