Murder trial halted as 'victim' is found alive

[subgenius]

(Oh darn there goes my conviction rate.)

From Roger Maynard in Sydney
A TEENAGED Australian girl thought to be dead after being missing for nearly five years has reappeared during the trial of a man the prosecution said had confessed to murdering her.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-643089,00.html

There is a saying among prosecutors, that you're not good until you've convicted an innocent man.
They ignored the most obvious suspect, the boyfriend that helped her run away only weeks before. Do they have capital punishment in Australia? That really would have been funny.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius
[BThere is a saying among prosecutors, that you're not good until you've convicted an innocent man. [/B]

Among prosecutors where? Can you show a source for this claim?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Troll


Among prosecutors where? Can you show a source for this claim?

My ears. My brother. Wayne County Prosecutors office 20 years.
Most are joking of course.
I have 6 brothers, another one just retired from the Detroit police department after 30 years. Want to hear some other sayings?

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius


My ears. My brother. Wayne County Prosecutors office 20 years.
Most are joking of course.
I have 6 brothers, another one just retired from the Detroit police department after 30 years. Want to hear some other sayings?

sure. I love to hear folklore and sayings and the like. But bear in mind that you're opening a door to having to accept said things from others in the future if you use them yourself.;)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Troll


sure. I love to hear folklore and sayings and the like. But bear in mind that you're opening a door to having to accept said things from others in the future if you use them yourself.;)
Au contraire. You fail to understand the concept of "from the horse's mouth."
He was a prosecutor, I've known dozens. This is not hearsay, I heard them say it.
You don't have to believe me.
And I listen to what people say and their personal knowledge before I give it what weight it deserves.
Sheesh.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius

Au contraire. You fail to understand the concept of "from the horse's mouth."
He was a prosecutor, I've known dozens. This is not hearsay, I heard them say it.
You don't have to believe me.
And I listen to what people say and their personal knowledge before I give it what weight it deserves.
Sheesh.

You heard form a few localized folks.

I was a Marine. Not all of us said " Kill them all and let god sort them out" If you heard that from one Marine, then you heard it from that Marine. doesn't mean it's a widely accepted viewpoint

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius
There is a saying among prosecutors, that you're not good until you've convicted an innocent man.



He may not be "innocent". It seems he was supposed to have murdered other victims who bodies were found? Is it a case of they tacked on another one to him because it fit his modus operandi? Why did he confess?

Much more here than meets the eye.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx



He may not be "innocent". It seems he was supposed to have murdered other victims who bodies were found? Is it a case of they tacked on another one to him because it fit his modus operandi? Why did he confess?

Much more here than meets the eye.
And less, since he definitely didn't kill her.
Why assume he did confess, and there's a whole body of knowledge about why people do confess to crimes they didn't commit, including coercion.

[Cleopatra]

Subgenious is right about this saying... according to my experience though, in such cases are not the prosecutors to blame but the endless row of witnesses of fellow citizens of the accused person, who are always willing to testify-under oath-that he is guilty...

It's amazing how many cannibal insticts survive in our societes...

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius

Why assume he did confess, and there's a whole body of knowledge about why people do confess to crimes they didn't commit, including coercion.

True, thats why I said more than meets the eye. Is coercion common practice in australia?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


True, thats why I said more than meets the eye. Is coercion common practice in australia?
Who cares (that would be an endless unprovable argument), he didn't do it. There are other reasons for false confessions as well.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius

Who cares (that would be an endless unprovable argument), he didn't do it. There are other reasons for false confessions as well.

True about his confession to her murder. What about the others? Can you convict an innocent man when he is only innocent of one out of three accusations? Isn't he still guilty of two?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by subgenius
This is not hearsay, I heard them say it.hearsay n

information that is heard from other peopleSorry .... :p

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Sorry .... :p
Hearsay is when someone says something of which thay don't have personal knowledge.
If someone tells me they themselves have a saying that is not hearsay.
Me telling you that is hearsay. As is all of the information you get outside your own senses.
Hearsay is a rule of evidence in courts. It is also how most of us get most of our everyday information, and therefore, yes, its good to know your sources.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by subgenius
If someone tells me they themselves have a saying that is not hearsay. Me telling you that is hearsay. Exactly. So, on this board, your quotes from those 'someones' are.

hearsay, adj

being or containing information heard from other peopleSorry again ... :p

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Exactly. So, on this board, your quotes from those 'someones' are.

Sorry again ... :p
Just like all the information you ever got in your life other than through your senses. Hearsay is not always unreliable or untrue.
Your point?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by subgenius

Just like all the information you ever got in your life other than through your senses. Hearsay is not always unreliable or untrue.
Your point? I think, in general, the definition in court of 'hearsay' compared to a 'real' witness is, do the people who saw it tell it to me, or does someone who heard them say they saw it tell it to me.

In other words, witnesses are those who saw or heard, hearsay is when someone tells what they heard someone else see or hear.

You cannot post something, stating that someone told you, and at the same time state it is not hearsay - when per definition it is. If you state that this and this person claims so and so, you'll be asked for references so that others can check.

If you give those references, we can read what the person said/wrote himself, not what you told us he said/wrote.

And, of course, hearsay is not 'always unreliable or untrue'. But it is even more reliable and true to see what the person himself said. :p

[subgenius]

Circles.
What I perceived was not hearsay.
You hearing it from me was.
And the point is?
What does any of that have to do with the point of this thread?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by subgenius
Circles.
What I perceived was not hearsay.
You hearing it from me was.
And the point is?
What does any of that have to do with the point of this thread? Hehe. :p

In the second post of this thread you were asked to 'show a source for your claim'.

In the third post, you answered by referring to 'what you had heard':

My ears. My brother. Wayne County Prosecutors office 20 years.
Most are joking of course.
I have 6 brothers, another one just retired from the Detroit police department after 30 years. Want to hear some other sayings?Since then, the discussion has been about what is hearsay.

Now, you seem to admit it is (not what your cousins told you, but what you posted on the board). ;)

Maybe, if you want to get back on topic, this would be an excellent time to post some evidence except hearsay that 'you're not good until you've convicted an innocent man'?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Hehe. :p

In the second post of this thread you were asked to 'show a source for your claim'.

In the third post, you answered by referring to 'what you had heard':

Since then, the discussion has been about what is hearsay.

Now, you seem to admit it is (not what your cousins told you, but what you posted on the board). ;)

Maybe, if you want to get back on topic, this would be an excellent time to post some evidence except hearsay that 'you're not good until you've convicted an innocent man'?
Evidence of what?
Do you have evidence of your date of birth? Do you know that's hearsay?
Tell me something, anything that isn't hearsay. Try.

[Denise]

Some people think that other people never change their minds. I'm here to say that I did change my mind about a subject after much thinking and "soul" searching.

I changed my mind about the death penalty. I used to believe that the death penalty was a just punishment. Then I learned to think critically.

The death penalty does not deter murder, the death penalty is giving more power to the state when I am against giving more power to the state. But the big kicker is that innocent people might (and most likely have) been put to death.

Thanks for this story, it solidifies my position even more.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Troll


True about his confession to her murder. What about the others? Can you convict an innocent man when he is only innocent of one out of three accusations? Isn't he still guilty of two?

We don't get the whole picture from the article, but if the only real evidence the prosecutor has is the taping of the confession he made in prison (which is refered in the article), then they have no case.

I would guess that a confession like that can be made for several reasons, including impressing the other inmates. I don't have any first hand experience with prisons, so I can't tell. But it is true that there are always derranged people who jump to confessing high-profile cases, just to be in the spotlight.

I think that a confession should only be accepted as real if it lead to solid evidence, like the scene of the crime, murder weapon, location of the body... It's to easy to get a confession for it to be a proof on its own.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Troll


sure. I love to hear folklore and sayings and the like....

If you rent Errol Morris' The Thin Blue Line, I believe they attribute the saying as being repeated by former Dallas County DA Douglas Mulder. Only I think this version is "Any DA can convict a guilty man but only a really good DA can convict an innocent one."

I hope this helps.

(Edited for spelling and such)

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Denise
The death penalty does not deter murder, the death penalty is giving more power to the state when I am against giving more power to the state. But the big kicker is that innocent people might (and most likely have) been put to death.


This is precisely why I changed my mind on the death penalty. I used to think that there was no way an innocent person could be put to death in this country. I no longer feel that way.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by NightG1


If you rent Errol Morris' The Thin Blue Line, I believe they attribute the saying as being repeated by former Dallas County DA Douglas Mulder. Only I think this version is "Any DA can convict a guilty man but only a really good DA can convict an innocent one."

I hope this helps.

(Edited for spelling and such)
That's just hearsay.;)

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by subgenius
Do you have evidence of your date of birth? Do you know that's hearsay?Hospital's keep records of births. Most people have a copy of their Biirth Certificate as it is necessary to acquire other documents. A driver's license will have your birthdate. Any of these things would not be considered hearsay. It would be inadvisable to post them on an open BB, though. Can't say I can see why a site for your saying would fall into that category.

Tell me something, anything that isn't hearsay. Try. George Bush is the president of the US.
2+2=4.
The moon's orbit is around the earth.
A kangaroo is a marsupial. As is a wallabee and a koala.

Am I the only one who's confused by this? It seems pretty straightforward. "I heard Bob say he can fly" is hearsay. "I saw Bob fly" is not. Either statement can be true or false, hearsay does not reflect on veracity, just believability. ie "I heard Bob say he can fly" could mean that Bob can levitate or it could mean that Bob is able to fly a plane. "I saw Bob fly" means that I can say whether that means he can levitate or is a pilot as I witnessed the event. I believe the hearsay rules are based on trying to minimize misinterpretations by witnesses ("I killed Bob" could be a reference to murder or a comment on a tennis match.)

The statement about prosecutors could be interpreted as a amoral sentiment about the legal system or a rueful commentary that sometimes the system reaches the wrong conclusion... without the prosecutor who said it it's rather difficult to tell.

(I was unable after a couple quick google searches to turn up any references to the saying. Perhaps others (such as NightG1) will have more luck.)

from the article:News of the teenager’s survival was announced by Paul Rutledge, for the prosecution, in Rockhampton Supreme Court. “I’m pleased to inform the court that Leonard John Fraser is not guilty of the murder of Natasha Anne Ryan,” he said. “Natasha Ryan is alive.” That doesn't sound like an amoral prosecutor hell bent on a conviction... of course he could just be trying to save a bit of face. Since we can't ask him it's hard to say for sure. ;)

I don't believe Australia has the DP, but I'm sure some Australian will be able to say.

[reprise]

No, we do not have the death penalty here.

[subgenius]

Aoidoi, my friend,
Nearly all the statements you made are as much hearsay as the little story I related.
All those records are hearsay. You don't know your date of birth except through hearsay. You will never understand what I'm saying will you?
I still don't know what your point was other than to try to distract from the point of this thread.
P.S. Here's a little test: Is circumstantial evidence lesser evidence than direct evidence?

[reprise]

For what it's worth, the trial resumes tomorrow and there is a great deal of media speculation about whether the defence will move to have the current trial aborted.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by reprise
For what it's worth, the trial resumes tomorrow and there is a great deal of media speculation about whether the defence will move to have the current trial aborted.
Greetings to those on the other side of the world.
I assumed the prosecutor was dropping the charges.

[reprise]

I assumed the prosecutor was dropping the charges.

The indictment against Fraser charged him with 4 murders. The indictment was returned to the prosecution and amended before it was announced to the court that Natasha Ryan had been found alive and well.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by subgenius
Aoidoi, my friend,
Nearly all the statements you made are as much hearsay as the little story I related.Care to explain? How is the statement 2+2=4 hearsay? It is an indepentently verifiable statement of fact, as are the others. There is no way to verify hearsay. Seems simple enough, can you explain what I'm missing in your argument?
All those records are hearsay. You don't know your date of birth except through hearsay. You will never understand what I'm saying will you?It appears you are simply making a statement about having to take people's word in many cases as there's little other choice, however I feel you are misusing the legal term "hearsay" for your ends. Doesn't particularly bother me, I just find it a bit odd.
I still don't know what your point was other than to try to distract from the point of this thread.A thousand pardons if I have contributed to derailing the thread, I was merely following up on the part of your original post about the prosecutors' saying.
P.S. Here's a little test: Is circumstantial evidence lesser evidence than direct evidence? I believe so, though I fail to see how that supports your contention that everything is hearsay. (apologies if that's a strawman, I'm jetlagged and having a bit of trouble trying to figure out where you're headed with this).

As to the point of an apparent murder victim being found alive; I doubt it's the first time and probably won't be the last. As has been pointed out in many threads people are sometimes convicted of crimes they did not commit, often on flimsy evidence. I've yet to see anyone come up with a reasonable solution to the problem. Determining truth is often a difficult task, and the police and prosecutors aren't always up to the challenge. How would you fix the system? Any system. This example is in Australia, many others have been from the US, and I know of several from the UK. Given the time and inclination I'd imagine we could find examples in every country in the world. What is to be done about it?

[Patrickt]

The issue of unscrupulous attorneys isn't the question that was originally raised. In the U.S. it has been, until recently, the rule, in all states, I believe, that the prosecution had to establish that a crime had been committed independent of a confession. You could not proceed with a prosecution based on nothing but a confession. This led to the false belief that in a murder the police had to have a body. A body wasn't necessary but evidence that the crime of murder had been committed had to be presented.

I do not believe false confessions are as common as people believe or that many prosecutors would want to convict an innocent man. But, I believe the rule that the prosecution has to prove that a crime was committed is worthwhile and should be maintained.

Also, it's my opinion that circumstancial evidence such as fingerprints, ballistic matches, and DNA evidence can be superior to direct evidence such as an eye witness or a co-conspirator's statement.

[subgenius]

Aoidoi,
Without getting into "Introduction to the Rules of Evidence" most hearsay CAN be independently verified, such as my original statement.
You only know your date of birth because of what someone told you, or what you read. That makes it hearsay. You do not have personal knowledge of your date of birth, unless you have an extraordinary memory, and even then you probably didn't know what day it was but for someone telling you (more hearsay).
The circumstantial question was posed to show that, like hearsay, many have an inaccurate concept of what it is, and what its weight should be. Circumstantial evidence can be more probative and accurate, with greater weight than direct evidence.
When I related my story, it was based on personal knowledge. Your acceptance/rejection of it depends on your assessment of my credibility.
By the way, of course, it has been corroborated below, but you are free to reject that as well.
It is impossible to live your life based solely on what you gain from personal experience. You rely on hearsay all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that. "Hearsay" is mostly a valid and necessary forensic rule.

[reprise]

I probably need to explain a few of the legal dynamics which are operating in this case.

Some years ago, the defendant was charged with the murder of a nine year old girl. There was physical evidence supporting his being involved in this young girl's murder and during the time he was awaiting trial for that particular murder he led the police to the remains of that young girl and two other women (there was physical evidence linking him to the murder of one of these women, too). It was during this time that the taped confession to the murder of these women and Natasha Ryan was made.

The Department of Public Prosecutions made a decision to have 4 separate murder charged tried together - this is not an unusual practise here, especially under the circumstances described above. The court is expected to rule today on whether the amended indictment has any standing.

In other news, Natasha Ryan's story is now for sale to the highest bidder - something about which neither the police nor the SES (both of whom spent countless hours of manpower searching for her body) are especially happy.


'Murder victim' to sell her story (http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6280596%255E421,00.html)

[subgenius]

reprise,
thank you for the additional background...

[schplurg]

Sub:
There is a saying among prosecutors, that you're not good until you've convicted an innocent man. I can't believe people are picking on this statement to such an extreme! It seems to have just been said in passing...jeeesuhzzz loosen up people! Or maybe you hit a few nerves, Sub...any lawyers in da house?

On topic:
They're paying her $250,000 for this story? She runs away to a house a mile away, and remains there unknown for five years...that's it? Whoopee!!! I can't wait for the TV mini-series!
:rolleyes:

I do wish there were more details on the case though, like why they thought she was dead (besides the confession), how long they searched for her, whether or not her parents were abusive (or just plain stupid). The boyfriend pleaded guilty to helping her run away, and, surprise, she was found with him...gee what are the odds?! This just sounds so stupid. Why didn't they just as John Edward if she were alive? Won't anyone ever learn? ;)

[subgenius]

"Sub...any lawyers in da house?"
Me.

[reprise]

schplurg, the boyfriend was one of the first people interviewed when Natasha Ryan disappeared for the second time (he was at that time facing charges for having aided her in running away previously). Had there not been a serial killer at operating in the region, and had that serial killer not confessed to having murdered Natasha Ryan, it is likely that she would have become one of the many "missing persons" cases we have here each year which are never resolved.

Those who witnessed her disappearance from the cinema complex told police that she had been FORCED into a car.

The SES spokesman who commented this morning talked of "thousands of man-hours" having been dedicated to searching for Natasha Ryan's body - that's certainly consistent with the normal practise here when police have reason to believe that there may be a serial killer at large.

While I think the DPP made a huge error having 4 murder charges tried together in this instance, I understand why they did so. In previous instances where the DPP has elected to lay charges in respect of only SOME murders alleged to have been committed by a person, the families of other victims have been outraged both by the lack of acknowledgement by the courts that a family member of theirs - too - was a victim, and also by the lack of legal entitlement to compensation which the families of non-acknowledged victims face.

[subgenius]

reprise,
more good analysis

[reprise]

FWIW, charges CAN legally be withdrawn while a trial is in progress under Australian law.

The most likely outcome in this case is that the current trial will be aborted, there'll be a High Court challenge contesting the validity of the other charges on the the indictment, and the High Court will rule that at least one of those other charges is valid and that the defendant must stand trial on that charge. The physical evidence linking the defendant to at least two other murders is simply too strong for the High Court to be able to overturn the original decision to commit the defendant for trial ( a commital hearing in Australia is somewhat similar to the Grand Jury process in the US - it's a legal test of whether there are sufficient legal grounds to commit a defendant for trial on a serious charge).

[Smalso]

There seem to be some cases where the prosecution makes an implicit argument to the jury along the lines of: "Hey, this guy is a drug-dealing shoplifter and wife beater and hog thief. Don't worry if he didn't do this particular crime; he deserves to be locked up anyway."