Bugger the death penalty!!!

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/10/22/1161455608834.html

Pardon given.  

It ought be exoneration, not a pardon.  Ross did not do it.

Would it make any difference?

The article:

THE State Government has begun legal proceedings to pardon a man hanged in Melbourne 84 years ago for a murder he almost certainly did not commit.

Fresh evidence suggests that Colin Campbell Ross, who was executed for the 1921 killing of 12-year-old Alma Tirtschke — in the infamous Gun Alley murder — was innocent, as he had always claimed.

Attorney-General Rob Hulls has written to Chief Justice Marilyn Warren asking her to consider a plea of mercy for Ross. It is the first time in Victoria's history that a posthumous pardon may be offered.

The unprecedented move comes after legal experts at the Justice Department examined a 31-page petition of mercy, signed by relatives of both the victim and the man convicted of her murder.

Mr Hulls has concluded that there is sufficient doubt about the verdict to warrant a new Supreme Court ruling.

Hawthorn schoolgirl Alma Tirtschke was raped and strangled while in the city running errands for her mother. Her naked body was found by a bottle gatherer in Gun Alley, off Little Collins Street, on December 31.

Ross, who ran a nearby wine bar, was arrested at his Maidstone home on January 12. After a short trial and two failed appeals, he was executed 115 days after the murder.

Prosecutors claimed that Ross, 28, lured Alma into his wine saloon in the Eastern Arcade in Bourke Street, took her into a small room off the main bar, then plied her with alcohol before he raped and strangled her. The court was told Ross then put her body in a nearby laneway, where it was found the next morning.

However, Ross was able to produce alibi witnesses who said they saw him at work and on the tram heading home at the time of the murder.

The key evidence against him was given by two contradictory and unreliable "witnesses" — prostitute Ivy Matthews and career thief Sydney John Harding, who claimed Ross independently "confessed" to the murder.

But the petition of mercy says the prosecution failed to tell the court that Harding was a known and repeated perjurer. The Crown was aware that his military record included convictions for making a false statement to a superior officer and giving false sworn answers on his attestation papers.

The only forensic link came from hairs found on a blanket discovered at Ross' home, which were said to match hairs taken from the victim.

Government analyst Charles Price, a chemist by occupation and not a forensic expert, gave evidence that the hairs "were derived from the scalp of one and the same person".

We MUST have a labor govt to squander resources on such a pointless exercise.

There was a book about this called Gun Alley: Murder, Lies and Failure of Justice and an article about it in the Age back in 2005.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/books/wrong-man-hanged/2005/07/08/1120704555156.html

FD wrote:


Quote:

Would it make any difference?

Yes, a HUGE difference.  A pardon is extended to a person who is acknowledged as having done something untoward as a statement that the person is forgiven, pardoned.

It ought be publicly stated that Ross NEVER committed the offence, the conviction must be stricken from judicial records, and replaced with a statement of the man's absolute innocence.

But you can't exonerate someone without a trial. Given that he is dead, a pardon is probably the best they can do. In fact, it alone will be unique. In all practical measures it will mean the same thing. However, the evidence is now too flimsy to make a ruling either way. An exoneration so long after the fact would be hollow and meaningless.

Did they wait until all the crown prosecutors were dead or something? I'd image there would have been a strong case to put them on trial if they mislead the court.

I agree, Aussie.  Then there is the important fact that the descendents of Ross and the murdered child, Alma, need to have this put on the record too. Although it happened 86 years ago, it's in their family history and should be fixed.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 2:10pm:

Did they wait until all the crown prosecutors were dead or something? I'd image there would have been a strong case to put them on trial if they mislead the court.

Follow the link I posted!  "Researcher Kevin Morgan's Gun Alley: Murder, Lies and Failure of Justice, to be launched on Monday, explains how public hysteria, media criticism of police and politicians, and the testimony of unreliable witnesses conspired to assure Ross' hanging.

Morgan exposes serious flaws in the prosecution case and concludes that were the case to be tried today, Ross could not be convicted.

He spent many hours over the past decade scrutinising documents, some sealed for 75 years. He says Ross' death was an expedience to quell a baying city spooked by the 12-year-old Alma's death."

Does it explain why they were sealed?

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 2:22pm:

Does it explain why they were sealed?

Buy the book.  :P You could use Wiki and search for Colin Campbell Ross ... an article on there.  ;D

PS  I post links as a "hyperlink" (using the thingie above the B for bold) so that you can just point to it and go directly to the link, no cutting and pasting! ;)

it'll make no difference at all.
he may have well been guilty anyway.
just opening the old healed wounds of the victims relatives too.

As useful as saying sorry to the aborigines. What did that do ??

ALp fluff and pillowbiting

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 2:35pm:

it'll make no difference at all. he may have well been guilty anyway. just opening the old healed wounds of the victims relatives too. As useful as saying sorry to the aborigines. What did that do ?? ALp fluff and pillowbiting

The Supreme Court of Victoria have given him a pardon - apparently a first.

Kevin Morgan the author of the book did a lot of reseach and eventually the files were re-opened after 75 years and DNA on the strands of hair evidence proved that he could not have committed the crime.  The man was innocent.  He has living rellies (as does the murdered girl).  It's probably called "closure" or something.  The guy was hanged for something he didn't do.  A bit late for saying sorry, but what the heck.  :-?

The real murderer got off scott free.

I don't think it has much to do with the ALP.  ;)

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 2:35pm:

it'll make no difference at all. he may have well been guilty anyway. just opening the old healed wounds of the victims relatives too. As useful as saying sorry to the aborigines. What did that do ?? ALp fluff and pillowbiting

In fact, the victims family never, ever believed Ross had done it.

Here is some more about what a "pardon" means.




Victoria Attorney-General Rob Hulls said in a statement Tuesday that he referred the petition to the Supreme Court of Victoria and received an opinion "that there had been a miscarriage of justice in Mr. Ross' case."

"A pardon is not the same thing as a declaration of innocence," Hulls said. "In the circumstances of the case a retrial is not possible. A pardon is recorded against the conviction in recognition that the State forgives the legal consequences of the crime."

Tirtschke's niece, Bettye Arthur, was pleased with the pardon.

Why can't the Government take the obvious step and declare the bloke innocent.

So what if they get sued somehow....they deserve to be.

What a tragedy!!

[smiley=angry.gif]

Why can't the Government take the obvious step and declare the bloke innocent.

Separation of powers. You can declare him innocent if it makes you feel better.

What?  There is absolutely no reason why the Government cannot state that the judicial system stuffed up in convicting and killing Ross, who they can say apologetically, in their opinion, was an innocent man.

....and if it makes you feel better...............

I declare the man was always innocent, and thus unlawfully killed (they stuffed that up to) by the State.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 4:32pm:

Why can't the Government take the obvious step and declare the bloke innocent. Separation of powers. You can declare him innocent if it makes you feel better.

A typical response from a rusted on ALP voter! >:(

So nef and Aussie, you want the government to make another apology, this time for the wrong done to a single individual - a wrong that was not supported by legislation, but entirely within the jurisdiction of the legal system?

How far do you expect them to go in finding people to apologise to?

Aussie wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 4:37pm:

What?  There is absolutely no reason why the Government cannot state that the judicial system stuffed up in convicting and killing Ross, who they can say apologetically, in their opinion, was an innocent man. ....and if it makes you feel better............... I declare the man was always innocent, and thus unlawfully killed (they stuffed that up to) by the State.

I agree.  If you read a bit about it, he went to the gallows claiming he was innocent, and sure, I know, most crims claim they "didn't do it". Thankfully we haven't had Capital Punishment for eons. There have been a few other cases where an innocent man was jailed for Life.  One in Perth I think who was innocent and (eventually) proved innocent after a long time in jail. He had reason to sue the Establishment but probably never did.  :-/

Capital Punishment is barbaric.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 4:43pm:

So nef and Aussie, you want the government to make another apology, this time for the wrong done to a single individual - a wrong that was not supported by legislation, but entirely within the jurisdiction of the legal system? How far do you expect them to go in finding people to apologise to?

Brisbane?  I didn't want high interest rates and stuff.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 4:43pm:

So nef and Aussie, you want the government to make another apology, this time for the wrong done to a single individual - a wrong that was not supported by legislation, but entirely within the jurisdiction of the legal system?

The Supreme Court of Victoria has already handed down (the first) pardon (posthumously) to Ross and I doubt to the family of Ross and others want a formal "apology".  Just the records changed.  


Quote:

How far do you expect them to go in finding people to apologise to?

Get a grip.  Who mentioned The ALP Government? Always on the defensive there, hey?  :o

Neferti wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 4:59pm:

Quote: How far do you expect them to go in finding people to apologise to? Get a grip.  Who mentioned The ALP Government? Always on the defensive there, hey?  :o

Neferti wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 4:39pm:

freediver wrote on May 27th, 2008 at 4:32pm: Why can't the Government take the obvious step and declare the bloke innocent. Separation of powers. You can declare him innocent if it makes you feel better. A typical response from a rusted on ALP voter! >:(

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 5:01pm:

Neferti wrote on May 27th, 2008 at 4:59pm: Quote: How far do you expect them to go in finding people to apologise to? Get a grip.  Who mentioned The ALP Government? Always on the defensive there, hey?  :o Neferti wrote on May 27th, 2008 at 4:39pm: freediver wrote on May 27th, 2008 at 4:32pm: Why can't the Government take the obvious step and declare the bloke innocent. Separation of powers. You can declare him innocent if it makes you feel better. A typical response from a rusted on ALP voter! >:(

.......................................... ::) Computer went spaz? Line dropped out?  Wife told you to get off the computer? :D

I didn't think I'd have to explain, but oh well. It was you who mentioned the ALP.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 5:38pm:

I didn't think I'd have to explain, but oh well. It was you who mentioned the ALP.

Check reply #16. You stated "the government" and since the entire country is up to its armpits in Labor Governments ......... was I supposed to assume it was a Liberal "government"  thing? ::)

You stated "the government"

By you, you mean Aussie right?  ;) I was quoting him, not talking to myself.

Keep this poo out of my Thread, please.

In case someone does not know......I mean the Victorian Government, and I don't give a flying bugger which State Party forms the Government there.

Aussie wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 6:34pm:

Keep this poo out of my Thread, please. In case someone does not know......I mean the Victorian Government, and I don't give a flying bugger which State Party forms the Government there.

Sorry, Aussie,  I agree with you. Read what I said.  FD is picking on me for some reason.  :D

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 4:43pm:

So nef and Aussie, you want the government to make another apology, this time for the wrong done to a single individual - a wrong that was not supported by legislation, but entirely within the jurisdiction of the legal system? How far do you expect them to go in finding people to apologise to?

In this case, it is a no brainer.

No contest.

The man and his family have unequivocally been wronged* by the State, and any State worth the title, in such circumstances, ought correct the wrong, and get the cheque book out.

*The guy was killed by the State, FD, and the State stuffed up even in the murder, even though they planned in no-thought detail, and in cold blood.  

They murdered what was always an innocent man, and they allowed their victim to suffer for possibly as many as 20 minutes before the 'hanging' was effective.

.....and, where are all the proponents of the death penalty, or am I to assume everyone here agrees that there ought not be State sanctioned pre-meditated murder?

There is absolutely no reason why the Government cannot state that the judicial system stuffed up

There is a very good reason. It's called separation of powers. That's why it is the justice system that is making amends, not some politician. Any attempt to undermine the authority of the court would subvert this fundamental principle.

Why do you even want the government to respond? It's got nothing to do with the government. The government is not some kind of 'higher power' whose apology has more meaning.

Rubbish, FD.  

The Government has activated this pardon, not the Courts.

Ipso facto, the same Government can declare that the State murdered an innocent man, tainted his family.........and start writing cheques.

That won't take too long, and after they have done that, they can start spending money to find the real rapist/killer.

But, again.......who here still supports the death penalty?

You don't honestly expect them to re-open the case do you? Who are they supposed to compensate?

Those members of his family who probably have lived a life of shame as a consequence of this injustice.

Those members of his family who were deprived of his continued presence on this Earth by the Government's act in unlawfully killing him.

Aussie, you keep missing the point. The government did not kill him. The justice system did. There are very good reasons not to blur the distinction between these two institutions. For the government to compensate anyone, they would first have to determine whether an injustice was done. They have neither the resources nor the mandate to do so. The only thing worse than trial by media is trial by parliament.

Aussie wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 8:50pm:

Rubbish, FD.   The Government has activated this pardon, not the Courts. Ipso facto, the same Government can declare that the State murdered an innocent man, tainted his family.........and start writing cheques. That won't take too long, and after they have done that, they can start spending money to find the real rapist/killer. But, again.......who here still supports the death penalty?

I certainly do not support Capital Punishment.  This case is only one (of undoubtedly many) where lawyers (and the media) convinced the Jury that an innocent man was guilty.   It is a very old case (he was hanged 2 weeks? after found "guilty" back in 1922).



I doubt that Ross' family wants "compensation" but if it was me who had a "murderer" in my family history when, in fact, the man was innocent, I would certainly want the records changed.

WHO did murder that kid?  That is the question and I guess it is too late for her family to get answers.

By the way, did the ALP Victorian Government only "activate" the pardon because some "researcher" spent 10 or so years getting to the bottom of it?  OK he wrote a book .......  Good on him!

To answer a previous question Freediver ... about why the stuff was not opened for 75 years?  ALL crime evidence is kept on "file" .... until "someone" can come up with more evidence ...... even the "Crime Squad" might review murders that are no longer current but "something" happens and they check the archives and open the file again.  New ways of determining DNA has caught some who got away with it for decades!  There are many unsolved murders out there!  ;)

So when that link you gave said 'sealed' it really just meant no-one bothered to read it, not that there were any special barriers to gaining access?

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2008 at 5:24pm:

Aussie, you keep missing the point. The government did not kill him. The justice system did. There are very good reasons not to blur the distinction between these two institutions. For the government to compensate anyone, they would first have to determine whether an injustice was done. They have neither the resources nor the mandate to do so. The only thing worse than trial by media is trial by parliament.

The Government introduces and  passes the Legislation that determines The Rules of Law.  So, in effect, The Government is responsible.  ;)

The government is only responsible if you consider murder to not be a crime, or if you think all victims of capital punishment deserve an apology, regardless of whether they were guilty or innocent.

The error was in the judgement of guilt, from which the government could not be further removed.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2008 at 5:36pm:

So when that link you gave said 'sealed' it really just meant no-one bothered to read it, not that there were any special barriers to gaining access?

Exactly. The case was "closed" because the man was found guilty and hanged. Case closed, I guess.  However, the case files and evidence were not thrown out in the trash. Archived!  Whatshisname (the author) must have had to go through "hoops" to access the evidence  .. he did.

Have you any idea how many UNSOLVED murders there are in Oz?  Forensic science has changed a lot so anyone with an idea and wants to write a book can (and should) try to get these cases re-opened.

In the news today there is one female who was involved in killing kids.  She died without saying a word. Can't remember her name.  

We have relative few murders in Australia but there are some who still got away with it. The files are still there ........... I'd like to see all unsolved murders solved and those who dunnit get their just desserts and the families of those murdered (or missing) find out WHO did it.

Wouldn't you?

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2008 at 5:24pm:

Aussie, you keep missing the point. The government did not kill him. The justice system did. There are very good reasons not to blur the distinction between these two institutions. For the government to compensate anyone, they would first have to determine whether an injustice was done. They have neither the resources nor the mandate to do so. The only thing worse than trial by media is trial by parliament.

The courts are created by the state and the state is the repository of general revenue.  Regardless of the separation of powers the state hold the keys to the vault.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2008 at 5:38pm:

The government is only responsible if you consider murder to not be a crime, or if you think all victims of capital punishment deserve an apology, regardless of whether they were guilty or innocent. The error was in the judgement of guilt, from which the government could not be further removed.

Huh?  That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. [smiley=beer.gif]

The government did not find him guilty, the courts did, and the government is prohibited from interfering in that. The finding of guilt is what supposedly needs the apology, not anything over which the government has control, like whether murder is a crime. thus, it has nothing to do with the government.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2008 at 5:58pm:

The government did not find him guilty, the courts did, and the government is prohibited from interfering in that. The finding of guilt is what supposedly needs the apology, not anything over which the government has control, like whether murder is a crime. thus, it has nothing to do with the government.

It has a great deal to do with the government.  As I said the courts are created by acts of parliament.  

Any compensation to be paid is paid from general revenue.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2008 at 5:58pm:

The government did not find him guilty, the courts did, and the government is prohibited from interfering in that. The finding of guilt is what supposedly needs the apology, not anything over which the government has control, like whether murder is a crime. thus, it has nothing to do with the government.

OK then. The JURY needs to apologise for finding Colin Ross guilty.  If you read the documents you will find that Ross' Defence Lawyer was not satisfied with the result of the verdict and even he did some research into the case and determined that Ross was NOT Guilty.

It doesn't matter, the guy was hanged for a crime he did NOT commit 86 years ago (1922).

Do you still believe in Capital Punishment?  That's the Question.  ;)

The JURY needs to apologise for finding Colin Ross guilty.

Well no, the jury is only allowed to consider information presented to it in court. The crown prosecutors deliberately omitted crucial information, which I suspect is a criminal offence. They need to apologise and be held accountable, though they are probably dead to. Ultimately, the court bears some responsibility for miscarraige of justice also.

You missed my point with 'sealed' documents question. The link you gave seems a bit misleading, in that it implies the documents were deliberately hidden or withheld rather than just filed away as per standard practice. This creates the impression of a greater conspiracy.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2008 at 5:24pm:

Aussie, you keep missing the point. The government did not kill him. The justice system did. There are very good reasons not to blur the distinction between these two institutions. For the government to compensate anyone, they would first have to determine whether an injustice was done. They have neither the resources nor the mandate to do so. The only thing worse than trial by media is trial by parliament.

No FD, I have not missed the point at all.

The incompetent hangman was an agent/employee of the Victorian Government.  The Government of Victoria, as a consequence of an incompetent finding of guilt within the judicial system, unlawfully killed the man, who was always innocent. The Government always had the capacity to question the outcome of the Trial, but it refused to do so, for their own political expediency.

That same Government has now done a review, and found that the man was wrongly convicted, and therefore wrongly rendered dead.

Let those words impact on you FD......."think about it" (as you have asked of mantra on the nude kid thread)...the State, by way of cold blooded premeditation, KILLED an innocent man.

They get the cheque book out.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2008 at 6:30pm:

The JURY needs to apologise for finding Colin Ross guilty. Well no, the jury is only allowed to consider information presented to it in court. The crown prosecutors deliberately omitted crucial information, which I suspect is a criminal offence. They need to apologise and be held accountable, though they are probably dead to. Ultimately, the court bears some responsibility for miscarraige of justice also. You missed my point with 'sealed' documents question. The link you gave seems a bit misleading, in that it implies the documents were deliberately hidden or withheld rather than just filed away as per standard practice. This creates the impression of a greater conspiracy.

Crap.  No conspiracy.  Get rid of that tin hat, mate!

ALL criminal cases are filed away in ARCHIVES, for ever .  That includes all evidence such as "hairs",  blood samples, etc. Case closed (for the time being) but unless someone other than the Police decides to do more investigation,  some crimes may never be solved.

Your "sealed" documents comment is your problem, the evidence was ARCHIVED ...... it is still there but you, can't just access it, willy nilly.  Privacy laws and all that. >:(

I hate to say it but I agree with Aussie.  How embarrassing is that.   :-[

freediver, you really have no idea about this do you.

The courts are instruments of the state.   They are created by the state, the judiciary are appointees of the state and they are paid by the state.

The state makes a mistake the state fixes the mistake.

The Government always had the capacity to question the outcome of the Trial

How so? I've never heard of the government over-ruling a verdict.

Your "sealed" documents comment is your problem

You posted it, apparently copied and pasted from that other dodgy site.

Quote:

The Government always had the capacity to question the outcome of the Trial How so? I've never heard of the government over-ruling a verdict.

....errr......and.....errr.....right here FD, you are reading exactly that.

The State was pressured, the State decided that a pardon was deserved, and the State arranged for the Judiciary to follow suit.

That, per se, does not mean there is a breach of the separation of powers.

But, if anyone, these days believes that the AG of any State is not in constant touch with the Chief Justice of every State, on both macro and micro issues, I have not made this post.

When you plead guilty, you are 'arranging' for the court to agree with you and give you a guilty plea. That doesn't mean you have authority over the court or have a mandate to judge innocence or guilt. It's the same here. The government can give evidence regarding the crown prosecutors actions, but they cannot make a proclamation of innocence that has any legal wieght. It's under the court's jurisdiction and the courts will give the only verdict that amounts to more than hollow rhetoric.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2008 at 6:05pm:

When you plead guilty, you are 'arranging' for the court to agree with you and give you a guilty plea. That doesn't mean you have authority over the court or have a mandate to judge innocence or guilt. It's the same here. The government can give evidence regarding the crown prosecutors actions, but they cannot make a proclamation of innocence that has any legal wieght. It's under the court's jurisdiction and the courts will give the only verdict that amounts to more than hollow rhetoric.

Now you are an authority on  The  Law?  I thought you were an Economist? :o

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2008 at 6:05pm:

When you plead guilty, you are 'arranging' for the court to agree with you and give you a guilty plea. That doesn't mean you have authority over the court or have a mandate to judge innocence or guilt. It's the same here. The government can give evidence regarding the crown prosecutors actions, but they cannot make a proclamation of innocence that has any legal wieght. It's under the court's jurisdiction and the courts will give the only verdict that amounts to more than hollow rhetoric.

Try again.

That reads as though you are on some sort of drinking binge.

It makes no sense at all.

:-[

I support the death penalty in principle.
As soon as we have a system where all police, judiciary, and politicians are totally honest, infallible and incorruptible, then we can implement it.