Australia: Susan Falls not guilty of murder of husband

Submitted by anthony on Thu, 2010-06-03 18:04

Story here. Excerpt:

'A Sunshine Coast mother has been found not guilty of murdering her husband.

It took the jury less than two hours to decide Susan Falls had not murdered her husband, Rodney Falls.
...
Mr Falls' sister, Kim Page, stormed out of court swearing.

"You'll get yours," she said.

Another man also left the court saying "she got away with it" and slammed the door behind him.

The jury accepted Mrs Falls' argument that she was a victim of years of sustained abuse.

Justice Applegarth took several hours to sum up the case to the jury, beginning his address to them yesterday afternoon and continuing from 10am today.
...
He told jurors Mrs Falls' defence lawyers did not have to prove she was acting in self defence when she shot and killed Rodney Falls, but rather the prosecution must prove she wasn't acting in self defence at the time.

The onus of proof was on the Crown, he reminded them.

He also told jurors they must consider Mrs Falls state of mind at the time.

“Was she in fear of did she do what she did out of hatred and revenge, that's the essence of the prosecution case,” he said.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

"He told jurors Mrs Falls' defence lawyers did not have to prove she was acting in self defence when she shot and killed Rodney Falls, but rather the prosecution must prove she wasn't acting in self defence at the time."

Hell with a legal "standard" like that, no man is safe in domesticity with a woman in Australia. Don't know how you guys down there sleep at night!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2010-06-04 02:46

The defense does not have to prove anything, and I am a devout supporter of innocent until proven guilty.

The problem lies not in the instructions the judge gave but in the societal brainwashing that people have endured under the second wave of misandry for the last half century or so and the natural bias of human beings towards protecting females.

The problem is the jury dismissed the lengthy and intricate planning she undertook prior to the killing and set up the groundwork perhaps YEARS in advance of carrying out the act based simply on her word that she was abused. That and they jury thinks that he deserved to die over threats and bruises as they obviously believed he did abuse her in some manner that left no lasting physical scars or record of broken bones. That is not fair justice, that is the ultimate act or REVENGE as no amount of counseling will cure his condition - because he's dead.

The problem isn't the onus of proof being on the crown, the problem is the general public thinks a woman with everything in the world to gain from claiming abuse as an excuse for pre-meditated murder is enough to let her walk free.

I mean, my big question is, if this was really a crime carried out in fear of a monster, why did she use a gun with a silencer on it to avoid being heard by neighbors and clean up the scene with help of accomplices. So SHE could control the scene and how the killing was framed. She wanted things to play out her way, not have the neighbors call the cops and they show up to arrest her guns drawn. She's smart and manipulative.

Plus, I would bet $100 she was fucking one of her accomplices. Fear of her AFFAIR becoming known is certainly a motive for murder and an affair certainly explains the willingness of her accomplices.

Another $100 says she marries one of the three accomplices.

I don't fault the judge, but I do fault the jury for playing into her manipulations of the justice system.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Paragon on Fri, 2010-06-04 22:44