as posted here
EXCLUSIVE: THE Police officers who botched an investigation into an indecent assault by sex monster Dante Arthurs will face no disciplinary action.
The decision comes after a corruption probe found they made ``an honest error'' -- three years before Arthurs raped and killed schoolgirl Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu.
The Corruption and Crime Commission findings, released to The Sunday Times this week, determined there was no misconduct by police over their investigation of the attack against an eight-year-old girl in a Canning Vale park in December, 2003.
The inquiry found that police made ``an honest error'' in failing to forensically test Arthurs' blood-spattered shorts after he was charged with indecent assault and deprivation of liberty over the incident.
Arthurs was charged by police at the time, but after a review of the evidence the DPP discontinued the prosecution.
Police have been under intense scrutiny that their failure to test the shorts and the conduct of two officers in a heavy-handed video interview, deemed inadmissible by the DPP, may have ultimately contributed to Sofia's death by allowing Arthurs to go free.
But the CCC investigation found that any suggestion the events could have prevented Sofia's death, less than three years later, was ``no more than speculation''.
Eight-year-old Sofia's naked body was found by her 14-year-old brother on the floor of a toilet cubicle at Livingston Marketplace Shopping Centre at Canning Vale on June 26, 2006.
In November 2007, Arthurs was sentenced to life for Sofia's murder, with a minimum of 13 years before being eligible for parole.
At that time, Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan said it appeared that police had bungled the investigation into the 2003 attack, in which the girl was grabbed from behind and dragged towards trees, but managed to bite the offender and free herself.
He requested the CCC conduct an independent investigation.
In a statement to The Sunday Times, CCC Commissioner Len Roberts-Smith QC said he had sent a letter to Mr O'Callaghan advising that the CCC did not have the statutory function to comment about any possible impact the failure of the 2003 police investigation may have had on Sofia's murder.
In the statement, Mr Roberts-Smith said the CCC had found that:
While the decision to not have Arthurs' clothing forensically tested was ``extremely unfortunate'', it was ``an honest error'' and there was no misconduct by the police officers involved.
While the two detectives who conducted the forceful video interviews with Arthurs in 2003 did not engage in misconduct under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act, they had not followed police regulations, and
The internal police investigation into the actions of two detectives who conducted the interviews with Arthurs in 2003 was conducted adequately.
Sofia's mother, Josephine, and the DPP yesterday declined to comment.
as posted here
Saturday, 12 September 2009
Voluntary Contributions
I was in the kitchen this morning and I noticed a piece of paper on the bench, my family like many seem to love to fill any flat surface in the house with objects, I am the sort of person that believes that everything has a place, and that if you pick up something it usually has a place for it to go back too (workplace training), but anyway I live in a house of a reasonable level of clutter, but back to the piece of paper, I picked it up as I do and noticed that it was a Statement, I thought this was unusual for this sort of thing to be lying around, as my wife handles the family accounts and very well considering the limited income that we live on (my fault, lack of ambition, I am a low income wage earner) usually she would have this in her book of bills and would pay it as soon as possible. The thing that struck me about this particular bill or as it says it was a statement, not a tax invoice as such but a statement, but clearly at the bottom of the sheet it says Total Balance Owing, this particular statement had a total owing of $63.50, my first thought was to have a look at the statement date, it was for July so my first thought is why has it not been paid, believing that if it had been paid it would be in its appropriate place in the wifes bill book, the statement is like any other statement has charges on it and Cash payments listed, I can see that my wife has made payments on some of the charges but two of the charges appeared to be outstanding on amount of $3.50 for Culture Fusion Incursion NAIDOC Week, my wife and children being of Aboriginal decent, I was curions why this had not been paid and intend to ask if it had been paid as it should, but the other "Charge" was Voluntary Contributions, an amount of $60, hence the total at the bottom owing of $63.50, I can understand the amount of $3.50, but for the life ov me I can not understand why we have a statement telling me that we "owe" $60.
Now I understand that the issue of Voluntary Contributions in Public Schools is a hotly discussed issue, and I have heard of Principals getting in to a lot of trouble because of the way that they word letters sent out to parents demanding payment of these contributions, now the amount in itself of $60 is not unreasonable, but clearly it has the word "voluntary" in front of it, now myself, which you can probably tell by my poor grammar am the result of a Public Education, but I found it hard to understand how a voluntary contribution can we consider an amount owing ...
I do admit to owing money, we have a mortgage, credit cards and utility bills, I consider these to be a debt that has to be paid, and if someone gives me a statement with an amount owing I believe that they should justify this amount, and if they cannot then they should give me an statement that reflects the amount that I owe.
A few, not most, would say "just pay it", a few people will just pay it because its say it is owed, but the point is it is not an amount that is owed, 400 years ago under the reign of Queen Elisabeth I the education system that we now have started to form, before that only the rich had any chance of an education, now days, education is compulsory, we have the choice of a public education or a private education that we must pay for, I personally see no advantage in a private education, and the fact is an institution or business that trades as a private school is only doing so to make money, a business by definition must strive to increase it profits, which may mean downgrading its services, obviously there are private schools out there that provide a high level of education but they are well and truly way out of my income level, and yes by denying my children that level of education I feel guilty, but to be made to feel guilty because I don't pay $60 to my child's public school is so wrong if I was financially independent I would have them in the best school but then again I believe they need the social education that only a public school can provide.
Now if you take the word "contribution" in to account it does get quite messy, basically it implies a payment or a gift, now if you say a voluntary payment, well why would you, but if you say a voluntary gift this makes sense, so whats the problem, well State Schools are consider to be a State Government Entity and State Government Entities are not entitled to receive tax deductible gifts, or so I if I do pay this contribution I can not claim it as a gift on my tax return, fair enough, if I give money to my local church I can claim it, but if I give money to my local underfunded school it is a gift of pure charity one that I can choose to volunteer if I wish and it should not be consider a debt ...
Now I understand that the issue of Voluntary Contributions in Public Schools is a hotly discussed issue, and I have heard of Principals getting in to a lot of trouble because of the way that they word letters sent out to parents demanding payment of these contributions, now the amount in itself of $60 is not unreasonable, but clearly it has the word "voluntary" in front of it, now myself, which you can probably tell by my poor grammar am the result of a Public Education, but I found it hard to understand how a voluntary contribution can we consider an amount owing ...
I do admit to owing money, we have a mortgage, credit cards and utility bills, I consider these to be a debt that has to be paid, and if someone gives me a statement with an amount owing I believe that they should justify this amount, and if they cannot then they should give me an statement that reflects the amount that I owe.
A few, not most, would say "just pay it", a few people will just pay it because its say it is owed, but the point is it is not an amount that is owed, 400 years ago under the reign of Queen Elisabeth I the education system that we now have started to form, before that only the rich had any chance of an education, now days, education is compulsory, we have the choice of a public education or a private education that we must pay for, I personally see no advantage in a private education, and the fact is an institution or business that trades as a private school is only doing so to make money, a business by definition must strive to increase it profits, which may mean downgrading its services, obviously there are private schools out there that provide a high level of education but they are well and truly way out of my income level, and yes by denying my children that level of education I feel guilty, but to be made to feel guilty because I don't pay $60 to my child's public school is so wrong if I was financially independent I would have them in the best school but then again I believe they need the social education that only a public school can provide.
Now if you take the word "contribution" in to account it does get quite messy, basically it implies a payment or a gift, now if you say a voluntary payment, well why would you, but if you say a voluntary gift this makes sense, so whats the problem, well State Schools are consider to be a State Government Entity and State Government Entities are not entitled to receive tax deductible gifts, or so I if I do pay this contribution I can not claim it as a gift on my tax return, fair enough, if I give money to my local church I can claim it, but if I give money to my local underfunded school it is a gift of pure charity one that I can choose to volunteer if I wish and it should not be consider a debt ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)