If you were on these juries .....

[Andrew49]

A WOMAN who served her husband curried prawns laced with sleeping tablets and then shot him twice in the head has been found not guilty of murder. Susan Falls, 42, had pleaded not guilty to murdering her husband Rodney Falls at their Caloundra home, on the Sunshine Coast, in May 2006. The jury also found her not guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter.

Source (http://bit.ly/only_in_australia)

It's the second time this week in Queensland's court system that someone accused of a violent crime has been acquitted after claiming extraordinary circumstances. On Wednesday a Logan father, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to Shayne Thomas Davidson, 43. The jury accepted the father's legal defence that the situation was an "extraordinary emergency" in which any ordinary or reasonable person would have reacted the same way.

A jury had taken 40 minutes to find the father not guilty of bashing a paedophile who molested his son after watching a rugby league match at his home. The man, who cannot be named, had pleaded not guilty in the Beenleigh District Court to a charge of assault causing grievous bodily harm - which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' jail, The Courier-Mail reports. He was alleged to have attacked Shayne Thomas Davidson, 43, at Eagleby on June 11, 2008 after learning about the assault on his son in his bed. Davidson pleaded guilty last year to indecently assaulting the boy but was spared a jail sentence.

- - - - -

I can't help but agree with the juries verdicts in both these cases.

[Tony1975]

I can't help but agree with the juries verdicts in both these cases.

Based on what? The fact that they deserved it?

The first case is clear cut case of cold-blooded murder. It's a shocking decision.

I would have a bit more sympathy for the guy in the second case (depending on whether it was a spur of the moment act, or a preplanned one), but citizens do not have the right to take the law into their own hands.

[Andrew49]

Based on what? The fact that they deserved it?

The first case is clear cut case of cold-blooded murder. It's a shocking decision.

I would have a bit more sympathy for the guy in the second case (depending on whether it was a spur of the moment act, or a preplanned one), but citizens do not have the right to take the law into their own hands.

From the trial:

Her husband wrote down the names of his four children and demanded his wife pick which one he would kill.

Mrs Falls had police serve a domestic violence order against her husband and the police officer involved in that matter warned Mrs Falls that her husband "would eventually kill her". The officer testified that after 16 years of police work she was deeply concerned for Mrs Falls. The police officer had written a statement saying:
"I told Susan if she stayed with Rodney he would eventually kill her".

- - - - - - - - - -

She did take extreme action against an extremely violent man. Of course she could have held her peace, and continued to live in fear and eventually become another 'domestic' abuse statistic.

[Tony1975]

From the trial:

Her husband wrote down the names of his four children and demanded his wife pick which one he would kill.

Mrs Falls had police serve a domestic violence order against her husband and the police officer involved in that matter warned Mrs Falls that her husband "would eventually kill her". The officer testified that after 16 years of police work she was deeply concerned for Mrs Falls. The police officer had written a statement saying:

- - - - - - - - - -

She did take extreme action against an extremely violent man. Of course she could have held her peace, and continued to live in fear and eventually become another 'domestic' abuse statistic.

There is no such information in your link. Could you point me to the court case where this man was found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crimes which he is accused of committing. Alternatively, you might show me the legislation that allows this woman to be judge, jury and executioner. You might also give me one good reason why she didn't walk away from this man in her early twenties if he was as bad as she says.

Okay, I'm being a bit of a prick. Obviously, I have huge sympathy for anyone who lives in a situation similar to the one this woman probably did. But, if you want to live in a society where people are allowed to beat and kill people based on their own sense of justice, where do you draw the line. Or, more importantly, who gets to draw the line.

[Andrew49]

There is no such information in your link. Could you point me to the court case where this man was found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crimes which he is accused of committing. Alternatively, you might show me the legislation that allows this woman to be judge, jury and executioner. You might also give me one good reason why she didn't walk away from this man in her early twenties if he was as bad as she says.

Okay, I'm being a bit of a prick. Obviously, I have huge sympathy for anyone who lives in a situation similar to the one this woman probably did. But, if you want to live in a society where people are allowed to beat and kill people based on their own sense of justice, where do you draw the line. Or, more importantly, who gets to draw the line.


Link - What the jury heard (http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/news12270.html)

Media reports during the trial (http://interceder.net/news/Susan-Falls)

Why should the woman become homeless? What wrong had she done? And if she had left what would he have done to her? She definitely couldn't challenge him physically.

In this particular case the jury got to draw the line. They heard the accused give her evidence; they heard her cross-examination; they heard expert witnesses etc., and found her not guilty.

News Link - includes local comments (http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2010/06/03/susan-falls-found-not-guilty/)

[Tony1975]

Even if I give you some leeway, here, and pretend for a second that women are legally allowed to kill their sleeping (drugged) husbands in 'self defense', then how do you justify this?


When Rodney Falls was asleep she shot him in the head and then came back a couple of hours later and shot him again.

She returned, after a few hours, to administer the coup de grâce to a unconscious man, very likely a cabbage, who can have been of no threat to her.

I'm at a total loss to understand the how this woman was not convicted.

[Andrew49]

Even if I give you some leeway, here, and pretend for a second that women are legally allowed to kill their sleeping (drugged) husbands in 'self defense', then how do you justify this?



She returned, after a few hours, to administer the coup de grâce to a unconscious man, very likely a cabbage, who can have been of no threat to her.

I'm at a total loss to understand the how this woman was not convicted.

How rational was she to begin with ... how rational can a person be after 20 years of abuse ?

[Tony1975]

How rational was she to begin with ... how rational can a person be after 20 years of abuse ?

Was she found not guilty by reason of insanity? What about her co defendants - what excuse have they?

Can we at least be honest and admit that this man was killed because his wife felt he deserved it, and that the jury acquitted her because they agreed that he deserved it?
Then we can discuss if individual citizens should be legally allowed to decide whether or not other citizens deserve to be drugged and shot.

[Andrew49]

Was she found not guilty by reason of insanity? What about her co defendants - what excuse have they?

Can we at least be honest and admit that this man was killed because his wife felt he deserved it, and that the jury acquitted her because they agreed that he deserved it?
Then we can discuss if individual citizens should be legally allowed to decide whether or not other citizens deserve to be drugged and shot.

I do agree with the jury's verdict in this case. Not sure if they agreed that he deserved it. They didn't think that it was murder or manslaughter.

THE man who supplied a gun to Susan Falls which she used to shoot her husband Rodney has been sentenced to 150 hours community service. Christopher Anthony Cumming-Creed, 24, had pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court in Brisbane today to one count of unlawfully supplying a weapon. The court was told Cumming-Creed supplied the weapon to former Sunshine Coast woman Susan Falls, 42, in May 2006.

[Tony1975]

I do agree with the jury's verdict in this case.
Why? If you were on this jury, and the judge asked you to explain your decision, what would you say? Keep your answer legal, not emotional.


Not sure if they agreed that he deserved it. They didn't think that it was murder or manslaughter.
So what was it?



THE man who supplied a gun to Susan Falls which she used to shoot her husband Rodney has been sentenced to 150 hours community service. Christopher Anthony Cumming-Creed, 24, had pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court in Brisbane today to one count of unlawfully supplying a weapon. The court was told Cumming-Creed supplied the weapon to former Sunshine Coast woman Susan Falls, 42, in May 2006.


Christopher Anthony Cumming-Creed, 25, Bradley James Coupe, 30, and Anthony James Hoare, 42, were also found not guilty of being accessories after the fact to the alleged murder.

Despite this

Cumming-Creed acted as the middle man between Mrs Falls and the unknown people who supplied the gun.from here (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/man-convicted-for-supplying-weapon-used-in-death-of-rodney-falls/story-e6freon6-1225875453145)
and this

The court was told Mr Coupe and Mr Cummings-Creed disposed of the recliner chair, the gun and the clothes Mrs Falls had been wearing at the time of the killing. from here
(http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/news12270.html)

So, this man supplied a gun and helped to dispose of evidence of a killing. Yet is not found guilty of accessory to a murder. Could you justify this decision for me as well?

[Andrew49]

Why? If you were on this jury, and the judge asked you to explain your decision, what would you say? Keep your answer legal, not emotional.


So what was it?

Self-defence I'd say.







Despite this
from here (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/man-convicted-for-supplying-weapon-used-in-death-of-rodney-falls/story-e6freon6-1225875453145)
and this
from here
(http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/news12270.html)

So, this man supplied a gun and helped to dispose of evidence of a killing. Yet is not found guilty of accessory to a murder. Could you justify this decision for me as well?

The jury decided no murder took place so he couldn't have been an accessory to murder. He was found guilty of disposing of evidence.

The husband liked to keep himself looking good, too, and was a devoted body-builder. Sometimes, to keep those big muscles hard, he used steroids. The steroids were expensive so he maintained a crop of cannabis to make a bit of extra money. On occasions the Falls family dogs would dig up his garden or damage his precious cannabis plants. He killed nine of them, mostly by drowning or beating. Source (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/what-pushed-susan-falls-to-kill-her-husband-rodney/story-e6frg12c-1225875784529?from=public_rss)

You're perplexed that nobody has been called to account for this grisly death - and probably never will; I'm perplexed that she didn't attempt to kill him sooner !

[Tony1975]

Self-defence I'd say.

Self defence is not compatible with this:-


When Rodney Falls was asleep she shot him in the head and then came back a couple of hours later and shot him again.







The husband liked to keep himself looking good, too, and was a devoted body-builder. Sometimes, to keep those big muscles hard, he used steroids. The steroids were expensive so he maintained a crop of cannabis to make a bit of extra money. On occasions the Falls family dogs would dig up his garden or damage his precious cannabis plants. He killed nine of them, mostly by drowning or beating. Source (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/what-pushed-susan-falls-to-kill-her-husband-rodney/story-e6frg12c-1225875784529?from=public_rss)

You're perplexed that nobody has been called to account for this grisly death - and probably never will; I'm perplexed that she didn't attempt to kill him sooner !

You have assassinated this mans character throughout this thread, assuming that he is guilty of things that he was never found guilty of in a court of law and for which he received a death sentence. Much of the information comes from the woman who was trying to beat a murder charge.
Much of the information is stuff you have only dug up after I challenged the verdict, meaning that you are seeking out information to justify your initial, emotional, reaction.

Now, I am man enough to admit that, on a human level, this prick probably did have it coming and I will cry no tears for him.
Can you admit that, on a legal level, this was the wrong decision?

[C. Flower]

This isn't the only case in which a woman has been acquitted for killing a man when he was asleep. There have been some cases in the UK in which women have been acquitted or received minimal sentences because their lives were so abused it was accepted as self-defence. In other cases, women doing the same thing have served long sentences.

Did the result depend on who was on the jury, or on the bench, rather than the rights and wrongs of the case ?

[Tony1975]

This isn't the only case in which a woman has been acquitted for killing a man when he was asleep. There have been some cases in the UK in which women have been acquitted or received minimal sentences because their lives were so abused it was accepted as self-defence. In other cases, women doing the same thing have served long sentences.

Did the result depend on who was on the jury, or on the bench, rather than the rights and wrongs of the case ?

People tend to be sympathetic towards women who kill men - both men and women. Especially if that man can be described, with or without justification, as an unpleasant individual. The same is not true the other way around. If a man kills his wife after being forced to endure several decades of the psychological torture otherwise known as nagging, then he is not likely to escape a lengthy sentence.
Juries do not have to explain their decisions. This makes it easy for them to acquit someone based on emotions, rather than the facts presented to them or the applicable laws.
It's obvious this is what happened here. I don't remember of an aquittal ever being appealed. Is it even possible?

[C. Flower]

People tend to be sympathetic towards women who kill men - both men and women. Especially if that man can be described, with or without justification, as an unpleasant individual. The same is not true the other way around. If a man kills his wife after being forced to endure several decades of the psychological torture otherwise known as nagging, then he is not likely to escape a lengthy sentence.
Juries do not have to explain their decisions. This makes it easy for them to acquit someone based on emotions, rather than the facts presented to them or the applicable laws.
It's obvious this is what happened here. I don't remember of an aquittal ever being appealed. Is it even possible?

Sentences can be reviewed, but otherwise the jury's decision is final.

I agree that what you described can happen, but equally, women accused of violent crime can be demonised at least as much as men.

If you have a look at the "Scissors Sisters" nonsense, there was a group of desperately damaged and abused women who were horrified by what they had done and in the case of the mother, voluntarily came back to to Ireland to face trial. The Press convicted them not only of murder but of oversized hoop earrings and bad eye makeup.

Another woman, Catherine Nevin, whose case if under Appeal at the moment was also vilified for her appearance.

Crime can sometimes be portrayed as if its "even worse" because a woman did it, and women aren't supposed to do these things.

The jury system is flawed and often subjective, but I think the alternatives are a lot worse.

[Tony1975]

Sentences can be reviewed, but otherwise the jury's decision is final.

Convictions can be overturned. I wasn't 100% sure about aquittals.



I agree that what you described can happen, but equally, women accused of violent crime can be demonised at least as much as men.


If you have a look at the "Scissors Sisters" nonsense, there was a group of desperately damaged and abused women who were horrified by what they had done and in the case of the mother, voluntarily came back to to Ireland to face trial. The Press convicted them not only of murder but of oversized hoop earrings and bad eye makeup.

Another woman, Catherine Nevin, whose case if under Appeal at the moment was also vilified for her appearance.

Crime can sometimes be portrayed as if its "even worse" because a woman did it, and women aren't supposed to do these things.

There are exceptions to the general rule, alright, and I take your point about the media obsession about women's appearance. But I'm not aware of any situation where women generally get longer sentences than men.



The jury system is flawed and often subjective, but I think the alternatives are a lot worse.
Agreed. Asking juries to justify their decisions would be a good improvement though.

What's your take on the case we've been discussing in this thread?

[C. Flower]

Amanda Knox won her appeal yesterday. A reporter on RTE who has followed the case said she won it because the prosecution produced no evidence and no motive.
She was also illegally detained and interrogated overnight at the outset of the case.

Irish Times still manages to find a pic to make her look like an insane witch ;)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1004/1224305205609.html?digest=1

[Andrew49]

Amanda Knox won her appeal yesterday. A reporter on RTE who has followed the case said she won it because the prosecution produced no evidence and no motive.
She was also illegally detained and interrogated overnight at the outset of the case.

Irish Times still manages to find a pic to make her look like an insane witch ;)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1004/1224305205609.html?digest=1

The prosecution 'leaked' some lurid stories to the press of Amanda being a satanic ritualistic sex crazed killer.

Lies, Damned Lies and the media lapped them all up (http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html)

[fluffybiscuits]

What is almost shocking is that the following line from the IT article rings very true


The family of murder victim Kercher sat in silence, making no comment. Her sister Stephanie had told a news conference earlier in the day: “Mez has been almost forgotten in all of this.”

The victim has been forgotten about. What needs to be looked at is if the the convicton was based on flimsy evidence. What evidence was there as a matter of interest as I didnt follow this one closely?

[Baron von Biffo]

Sentences can be reviewed, but otherwise the jury's decision is final.

Not any more. Since the 1st of September 2010 the double jeopardy principle which forms a cornerstone of all civilised legal systems no longer automatically applies in Ireland. You can be retried here following an acquittal.

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2010/09/02/double-jeopardy-and-the-criminal-procedure-act-2010/

It's all part of the ongoing dismantling of measures that protect citizens against abuse by the state. Shatter's undermining of the Criminal Legal Aid (http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=8777) system, the Judicial Pay Referendum (http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=8504) and the Oireachtas Inquiry (http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=9688) referendum are further steps down the same road.

[Andrew49]

What is almost shocking is that the following line from the IT article rings very true



The victim has been forgotten about. What needs to be looked at is if the the convicton was based on flimsy evidence. What evidence was there as a matter of interest as I didnt follow this one closely?

DNA evidence - which was eventually thrown out. The Case for the Prosecution (http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Prosecutionscase.html)

The most important character in this case is Giuliano Mignini


Guiliano Mignini was the lead prosecutor in the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito murder trial. Mignini was quick to take complete control over the investigation. Mignini had a vision of how this crime took place. He believed the crime started out as a sadistic sex game that turned into a brutal murder when Meredith refused to participate. His fantasy of a group sex game gone wrong was based on nothing more than his imagination. This is not the first time Mignini has had these visions. He already had a history of dreaming up satanic ritualistic murder fantasies.

Add to that the fact that in the past two years, Mignini has hurled satanic charges against 23 people. With Tuesday's dismissals, and his failed arguments in the Kercher case, the Perugia prosecutor is 0 for 23 on the satanic tally board. Italy is to blame for allowing Giuliano Mignini to continue to prosecute cases. He was currently on trial for abuse of office when he was prosecuting Amanda and Raffaele's trial. He should have been nowhere near this case. In my opinion, Mignini is an unstable human being. He has repeatedly shown his paranoia by slapping defamation lawsuits on anyone that disagrees with him. He has made every attempt possible to destroy the lives of two innocent people. He should no longer have the power to prosecute. Even after his conviction for abuse of office, Mignini still holds onto his power. I am sorry but that is simply ridiculous.

Source (http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Mignini.html)

[fluffybiscuits]

DNA evidence - which was eventually thrown out. The Case for the Prosecution (http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Prosecutionscase.html)

The most important character in this case is Giuliano Mignini


Guiliano Mignini was the lead prosecutor in the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito murder trial. Mignini was quick to take complete control over the investigation. Mignini had a vision of how this crime took place. He believed the crime started out as a sadistic sex game that turned into a brutal murder when Meredith refused to participate. His fantasy of a group sex game gone wrong was based on nothing more than his imagination. This is not the first time Mignini has had these visions. He already had a history of dreaming up satanic ritualistic murder fantasies.

Add to that the fact that in the past two years, Mignini has hurled satanic charges against 23 people. With Tuesday's dismissals, and his failed arguments in the Kercher case, the Perugia prosecutor is 0 for 23 on the satanic tally board. Italy is to blame for allowing Giuliano Mignini to continue to prosecute cases. He was currently on trial for abuse of office when he was prosecuting Amanda and Raffaele's trial. He should have been nowhere near this case. In my opinion, Mignini is an unstable human being. He has repeatedly shown his paranoia by slapping defamation lawsuits on anyone that disagrees with him. He has made every attempt possible to destroy the lives of two innocent people. He should no longer have the power to prosecute. Even after his conviction for abuse of office, Mignini still holds onto his power. I am sorry but that is simply ridiculous.

Source (http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Mignini.html)



I agree with you whole heartedly its a typical example of the judicial and political system at work in Italy. All a person has to do is to look at that crooked mutt Berlusconi to see how bad he is between his behaviour in office and the accusations against him it just illustrates that Italian power structures are more rotten to the core than Irish ones. Looking at the first link there was a lot of screw ups in the case, lack of DNA evidence, mixed DNA evidence, disturbed crime scene its almost as if Columbo or Inspector Gadget had been given the case.

[Andrew49]

This story gets worse and worse:


“In summary, Italian police had definitive knowledge of three criminal acts (at least) by Rudy Guede in the 33 days prior to the murder of Meredith Kercher yet they took no action against him. In one of these incidents he threatened someone with a knife inside their own home. Defense attorneys for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have never been able to get the police officials who “investigated” these crimes to come into court and describe what they knew. The reluctance of police officials to investigate Rudy Guede and to provide the results of their work to the Amanda Knox trial is an enduring mystery of the case. If Italian police had simply done their jobs properly then two innocent young people, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, would never have been unjustly imprisoned and Meredith Kercher would still be alive.” Source (http://www.groundreport.com/Business/The-Amanda-Knox-Case-New-Questions-Emerge-Surround/2941100)

[fluffybiscuits]

This story gets worse and worse:

Source (http://www.groundreport.com/Business/The-Amanda-Knox-Case-New-Questions-Emerge-Surround/2941100)


Its more like an Inspector Gadget mystery the more it goes on , its a complete farce. How it got to trial from what I have read is completely beyond me this is where I am surprised! This is again more evidence the judicial system being screwed up beyond belief...