Extinguishing reasonable doubt with unreliable allegations

Andrew L. Urban.

 The 2015 double murder conviction of Marco Rusterholz presents a significant concern about the Tasmanian criminal justice system, as it extinguishes the requirement for guilt to be established beyond reasonable doubt, relying on questionable allegations.    

In 2017, Tasmanian barrister Fabiano Cangelosi conducted an unsuccessful appeal for Rusterholz convicted of the 2012 murders of Angela Hallam and Joshua Newman.

The Appeal Court accepted that the circumstantial case against Rusterholz was not sufficiently strong to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but found that the claims of admissions made by Rusterholz to other persons, notwithstanding that they were persons potentially of very low credit, left the convictions as safe and reasonably open.

Under these circumstances, describing the convictions as “safe and reasonably open” is incorrect; the Crown’s case is not resting on evidence but on questionable testimony. Guilt is certainly not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

This is a court report in the Mercury, April 24, 2015:
THE defence council (sic) for Marco Daniel Rusterholz, accused of murdering two people in Launceston, told a Launceston Supreme Court jury that police investigating the crime had suffered from “Marco myopia”.

In his closing address, Evan Hughes told the jury that police had focused too much on gathering evidence to suggest that Mr Rusterholz committed the crime and not enough on three other men who, he said, could have had a hand in causing the deaths of Angela Maree Hallam and Joshua Eric Newman in a Ravenswood flat in 2012. 

Mr Hughes said a forensic examination found that the cap of a fuel can used to spread petrol around the flat, before it was set on fire immediately after the murders, carried the DNA of another man – David Ronald Morgan – and that the fuel can only carried Rusterholz’ DNA on an area at the opposite end to the cap.

“The prosecution does not explain how David Morgan’s DNA gets onto the cap,” he said, pointing out the black cap on a red plastic container.

“I’d suggest to you that if this is a gun, then that’s the trigger.”

Mr Hughes said Morgan’s DNA had also been found on taps in the unit where the murder took place. 

“Is it the case that he (Morgan) is the last one to touch the taps?” he said.

Mr Hughes said two other men – Mathew Coventry and Jamie Smith – had connections to Ms Hallam and could not be excluded from having an involvement in the murder.

Prosecutor John Ransom earlier said the crime scene evidence fitted with evidence provided by crown witnesses such as Brett Imlach, who had described in court a green bag containing Hallam’s hair in Rusterholz’s car and a conversation in which Rusterholz had told him how he had stabbed Ms Hallam “underneath the ribs”.

As we reported earlier, Rusterholz had been highly critical of trial judge Pearce in his detailed brief to Cangelosi. He also underlines the lack of credibility of the drug addicted witnesses who claim that he had admitted the crimes.

 

 

 

This entry was posted in Case 19 Marco Rusterholz. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Extinguishing reasonable doubt with unreliable allegations

  1. Ted Whalensky says:

    What is the point- working oneself into a position of power-so as to be able to wreck peoples lives-and then not doing so –Sitting up there all pompous and grand- being addressed as your Honourable One (waxing lyrical)-OH-what FUN- watch them squirm ( like a mullet on a sand bank)- drive home to leafy ville in the Mercedes . A nice wine–slab of Rib eye-Who did you do over today dear ? OH- some little person of no consequence Wasn’t even on the boat-Remind me to drop off the Mercedes for a service- a nice little wine my love-life is good ! I do miss capital punishment however ! I remember Little Ray Bailey-The way that Queensland Detective achieved that confession was textbook Queensland Police work ! Commissioner Material for sure !Bring back Knighthoods for us chosen ones-A cut above them peasants ! Majorca this year dear ?

    • Garry Stannus says:

      Your Mercedes man got a replacement vehicle, after the first one (upholstered with leather … though could have been the replacement that was thus upholstered …) got ‘damaged’ on the Bass Highway.

      [A beautiful young woman lost her life in that encounter. Her name is Natalia Pearn. That – like many other road deaths – was/is a tragedy.]

      I never drive that section of road without thinking of her and of her parents. Life is sometimes cruel. Oh, yes it is.

  2. Nick Albu says:

    Still haven’t read the transcripts Andrew?
    You are opening yourself wide to legal recourse.
    I am seeking direction.

    • andrew says:

      Those who are lost are wise to seek direction.

      • Father Ted Whalensky says:

        I requested legal direction in a relatively minor matter – ” you won’t win – they lie their effing guts out “- well that’s IT for me then – been a criminal ever since – in a relatively minor manner ! (Rimsky). The LAW is an ass. What ya gotta do – lie your effing guts out ! The skim milk emulates the CREAM – Never talk – Never ADMIT nuffin .

  3. Countess Antonia Maria Violetta Scrivanich says:

    How can anyone have faith in Tasmanian Appeals Court judges when they dismissed the Rusterholz Appeal based on untested speculation provided by persons of questionable reputation ? Maybe judges should be forced from time to time to attend university Law studies , and, if they fail , be disbarred not just from the bench, but, from the profession !
    WHAT criteria is used in Tasmania to make judicial appointments , ie to consider a person sufficiently expert in the Law to become a judge ? Does the Law Society propose prospective candidates , or, are these purely political appointments eg from the Premier ? Or with or without input from the Tasmanian Police Commissioner ? Could you please enlight we , the worried public .

  4. Steven Fennell says:

    One has to wonder if the prosecution in this case used phrases like ‘pioneered,’ ‘established,’ launched,’ and so on can all be used in place of ‘developed’ evidence.

    The prosecutions argument in their closing had to be developed for the *cloistered status of the jury’s level of critical thinking.

    Critical thinking has clearly deserted members of the Tasmanian Appel Court with comments that any law student would dismiss as reasonable, eg “The Appeal Court accepted that the circumstantial case against Rusterholz was not sufficiently strong to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but found that the claims of admissions made by Rusterholz to other persons, notwithstanding that they were persons potentially of very low credit, left the convictions as safe and reasonably open.”

    The comment “……………notwithstanding that they were persons potentially of very low credit, left the convictions as safe and reasonably open.” is contrary to logic and invites the jury to openly speculate as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant rather than to weigh the evidence or lack thereof and make a decision on that basis alone.

Leave a Reply to Nick Albu Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.