Posted on 02/15/2009 4:03:08 PM PST by naturalman1975
THE public has been urged not to threaten the safety of an accused firebug scheduled to appear in court today on a deadly arson charge.
A 39-year-old man accused of starting the Churchill-Jeerelang bushfire in Gippsland, in Victoria's east, has been remanded in custody and is due to appear in court today.
"Coming to court and protesting is not an appropriate thing to do,'' Police Police Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon said today.
"Obviously, we will make sure this person is well protected.
"We hope that we don't have to deal with a gang of people who are angry and concerned about this arrest. We know people are.
"We will make sure he is protected and can go before the justice system, as he should, and be dealt with through that process.''
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
But I think there'd be a lot less reason to worry about him being attacked if people had confidence he was facing a real punishment.
Twenty five years is the absolute maximum he can be given. For a fire that caused at least 21 deaths.
14 months a life.
And that's only if he gets the maximum. Courts have a history of handing out sentence about 10% of the maximum in bushfire arson cases.
He’d better hope that there are no relatives in the prison he’ll be in ..
Ya can give him 35 minutes or 25 years.
He’ll get splayed in prison.
And rightly so.
Why can’t they release a name? He’s not a member of the religion of peace, is he?
Is that common in Australia?
Probably not - what is known of him makes it likely, he’s a homegrown nutcase sexually obsessed with fire.
His name has been suppressed to protect his family from the risk of reprisals.
Fairly common at this stage of proceedings, yes. He hasn’t formally faced court yet and it’s unusual for a name to be released prior to that. He will face court today.
In his case, his identity may remain suppressed as the court specifically instucted the media to do so in order to protect his family from potential reprisals. Again, this isn’t that uncommon with very serious crimes in order to protect innocent people associated with the criminal. It generally doesn’t last forever, but can persist through the trial process.
One media outlet has already given his name at least once - whether by mistake or deliberately, I don’t know.
“He’ll get splayed in prison.”
Here in WI we unfortunatly had Jeffrey Dahmer, he of the cannibalistic fame. He went to Waupun Correctional Facility for a life sentence, since he killed multiple men before doing unspeakable things to their bodies. He was killed by another inmate rather quickly, not even sure if he made it 5 years behind bars. Justice was served.
Might want to make sure he is protected before you put him to death. Surely that is warranted after the mayhem and evil he unleased. And the numbers of people HE MURDERED. Crazy or not. Muzzie or not.
I would go to court.
What kind of a precedent are they setting here? Haven't they opened the door for every criminal to now demand that same treatment, and get it? Every time they make an exception for one, there are others who think they deserve that same exception. Send the family out of the country, or put them into protective custody, but this special treatment isn't fair for the victims or their families.
The decision is only taken in reasonably exceptional circumstances.
But given that last week an Australian man allegedly murdered the mother of the 20 year old who’d killed his son in a car accident, as an act of revenge, they are probably fairly sensitive to the issue at the moment.
Then go back to the pub and have a pint with the mates.
I’m pretty sure he might stumble and fall a few times before court and prison ... if he was in Canada they’d probably send him a card ....
Excerpt:
“...The suspect, in his home page on a social networking site, attacks his ex-girlfriend for her alleged infidelity in his opening remarks. A woman with the same name left several affectionate comments for him via the site.
She is pictured several times on her own page wearing a Country Fire Authority uniform with feathered angel wings attached. She is also pictured with a dog. The woman lists her address on the site as Gippsland, while he puts his as Latrobe Valley.
The CFA last night confirmed that the man charged was not one of its volunteers...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25052177-5018722,00.html
Just sayin'
Firefighter dies in house blaze
Georgina Robinson
February 12, 2009
Victorian police are investigating the suspicious death of a volunteer firefighter in a house fire in eastern Melbourne today.
The CFA confirmed the man was a volunteer firefighter. It was also reported he had been among the firefighting team that battled the Quarry Road bushfire on Saturday but a CFA spokeswoman said she could not comment on that.
Fire crews found the man, who has not been formally identified, after putting out a large blaze engulfing the house in Upper Ferntree Gully, in Melbourne’s outer eastern suburbs, about 3.40am.
Police said firefighters found the man after searching the single-storey weatherboard home on Jean Street.
Police said the arson squad and chemist were examining the house today, along with detectives from the local CIU.
The cause of the blaze was not yet known.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/firefighter-dies-in-house-blaze-20090212-85k6.html
Suppression order on name has been lifted - Brendan Sokaluk
By Richard Shears Last updated at 11:25 PM on 15th February 2009
The man accused of starting a blaze which killed at least 21 people in Australia had been turned down as a volunteer fireman, it was revealed yesterday.
Scrap metal collector Brendan Sokaluk, 39, wanted to be part of the official team of voluntary firemen who tackle blazes in rural areas.
But he was rejected by the state of Victoria Country Fire Authority for reasons which have not been made public.
Is that a hint? >Bo)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.