Monday, March 12, 2012

359 Catholic adoption agencies forced to close for rejecting Gays. Women who Kill

Catholic adoption agencies forced to close for rejecting Gays. Women who Kill

(1) Catholic adoption agencies forced to close for rejecting Gay couples
(2) Register office staff investigated for refusing to conduct Gay weddings
(3) Registrar who rejected Gay Marriages refused permission to appeal to Supreme Court
(4) Greens leader Bob Brown campaigns for Gay Marriage
(5) Gillard against gay marriage
(6) Gillard's paid paternity leave would also apply to Gay partners
(7) Motherly love 'does breed confidence'
(8) Simple test could detect Down's
(9) Women freeze eggs to wait for 'Mr Right'
(10) Tears as 'sniper' woman acquitted of murder
(11) Another "battered woman" walks free after execution-style murder of husband
(12) Women who kill get soft sentences from Feminist judiciary
(13) 'Battered Woman' "could have rung the police after her husband fell asleep - instead of shooting him"

(1) Catholic adoption agencies forced to close for rejecting Gay couples

Last Catholic adoption agency faces closure after Charity Commission ruling

The last remaining Roman Catholic adoption agency to resist Labour’s equality laws is facing closure, after the charity watchdog ruled that it could not avoid considering same-sex couples as potential parents.

By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Published: 7:01AM BST 19 Aug 2010

Website of Catholic Care which has been told it cannot discriminate against gay couples

Catholic Care had been given hope earlier this year that it could get around the controversial anti-discrimination rules that forced other agencies either to close down or sever their links with the church.

In March a High Court judge had ordered that the Charity Commission consider whether to allow the agency's request to continue refusing to consider same-sex parents, thanks to a loophole intended to protect homosexual charities.

Catholic Care had argued that a clause of Labour’s Sexual Orientation Regulations, inserted to ensure gay organisations could not be sued for discrimination, entitled it to change its "charitable objects".

But in a judgement published on Thursday, the quango has ruled that it will still not allow Catholic Care to restrict its services to heterosexuals only.

The Charity Commission agreed that organisations can sometimes bend the rules and it conceded that Catholic Care, whose adoption agency is part of a wider social care organisation run by the Diocese of Leeds, offered a “valuable, high-quality service”.

But it ruled that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is a “serious matter” because it “departs from the principle of treating people equally”, and that religious views cannot justify such bias because adoption is a public matter.

The watchdog added that it believed same-sex couples can be “successful” adoptive parents and that even if Catholic Care closes down, the children it would have helped would be placed with new families through “other channels”.

Andrew Hind, the Chief Executive of the Charity Commission, said: “This has been a complex and sensitive decision which the Commission has reached carefully, following the principles set out by the High Court, case law and on the basis of the evidence before us. Clearly the interests of children are paramount.

“In certain circumstances, it is not against the law for charities to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. However, because the prohibition on such discrimination is a fundamental principle of human rights law, such discrimination can only be permitted in the most compelling circumstances. We have concluded that in this case the reasons Catholic Care have set out do not justify their wish to discriminate.”

The ruling means that Catholic Care is likely to have to close its adoption service, as if it decided instead to consider same-sex couples as parents it would be going against Catholic teaching on the importance of children having a mother and father. This would mean the agency, which can trace its origins back to an orphanage set up in Leeds in 1863, would lose church funding.

Since Labour’s homosexual rights law came into effect in January 2009, all the other 11 Catholic adoption agencies in England have either had to close down or sever their ties with the church hierarchy. Catholic Care was the last to hold out as it launched its legal bid.

The charity, which only found out the judgement was coming on Wednesday, has not yet decided whether to close its adoption service.

But it said that it planned to set up an “adoption support service” instead, for those who have already been adopted or become adoptive parents with its help.

A spokesman for Catholic Care said: “The Charity is very disappointed with the outcome. Catholic Care will now consider whether there is any other way in which the Charity can continue to support families seeking to adopt children in need.

“In any event, Catholic Care will seek to register as an adoption support agency offering a service to those who were adopted in the past and are now seeking information about their background, and also to support adoptive parents already approved by Catholic Care.”

(2) Register office staff investigated for refusing to conduct Gay weddings

Registrars investigated over 'refusal to conduct gay weddings'

Last updated at 4:09 PM on 16th August 2010

Two register office staff are being investigated after they allegedly refused to conduct gay weddings.

The registrars claimed they could not preside over the civil partnerships because it went against their religious beliefs.

It is claimed that the registrars swapped their shifts informally in order to avoid carrying out the services.

The pair both work at Lambeth Council’s town hall in Brixton, south London, where ceremonies for gay couples have been offered since 2005.

The allegations came to light at an equality seminar in May, when another registrar revealed it was happening.

A member of the council’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender forum was at the seminar and complained to chief executive Derrick Anderson, who then ordered an investigation.

Lambeth councillor Brian Palmer, who is gay, then heard about it and tabled a question at a full council meeting, asking what measures were being taken to prevent it from happening again. ...

The names of the two registrars alleged to have informally changed their work shifts to avoid conducting gay weddings have not been revealed.

The news comes after Islington Council won an appeal last year against a ruling that it unlawfully discriminated against Christian registrar Lillian Ladele who refused to perform same-sex civil partnerships.

A judgement in an appeal to the Court of Appeal by Ms Ladele has been reserved.

Theresa Davies, a fellow Christian registrar who also worked at Islington council and was a colleague of Ms Ladele’s claimed she was demoted to receptionist because she refused to preside over gay marriages.

Christian Institute

... In May 2008, the CI funded[6] the legal costs of Lillian Ladele, a registrar from Islington, London, who took her employer, Islington Borough Council, to the London Central Employment Tribunal. Ladele had refused to conduct civil partnerships on religious grounds, and following complaints from other staff she was disciplined under the Council's Fairness for All policy. Ladele claimed she had been subject to direct and indirect discrimination, and harassment in the workplace, on grounds of her religion.[7] In July 2008, the tribunal found in Ladele's favour, however this ruling was overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in December, 2008. [8] The CI later launched an unsuccessful appeal against this ruling in the High Court, and has been refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.[9][10]

(3) Registrar who rejected Gay Marriages refused permission to appeal to Supreme Court

"Join us in the campaign against Faith Schools"

Islington Registrar refused permission to appeal to Supreme Court

Fri, 12 Mar 2010

Lillian Ladele, the Islington registrar who refused to officiate at civil partnerships because of her religious beliefs, has failed in her attempt to take her case to the Supreme Court.

A court document states: “The court ordered that permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court at this time, bearing in mind that the case has already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal.”

NSS president Terry Sanderson was quoted on the news wires as saying: “We are relieved that the Supreme Court has refused to hear this case. Had Ms Ladele’s case succeeded it would have completely undermined equal treatment under the law for gay people and unlocked the floodgates to many other damaging challenges to equality legislation. Her demands that anyone following their religious conscience be exempt from the law to which everyone else is subject were unreasonable, and I am pleased that the courts have recognised this.”

Ladele resigned rather than conduct ceremonies for gay couples after her attempts to claim discrimination failed. In December 2009, Appeal Court judges agreed that she had broken the law. The Sexual Orientation Regulations make it illegal to refuse to serve someone on the grounds of their sexuality. She is now considering whether to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights. The case was financed by the Christian Institute.

(4) Greens leader Bob Brown campaigns for Gay Marriage

Brown takes gay marriage to daytime TV

July 21, 2010 - 4:59PM


Greens leader Bob Brown has taken his campaign for gay marriage into the lounge rooms of middle Australia - and earned a big round of applause.

Senator Brown talked of his same-sex relationship on The Circle, a mid-morning TV program on the Ten Network popular with stay-at-home mums.

Sitting on a sofa in front of a studio audience, the Tasmanian senator said he was "totally in favour" of gay marriage.

"I've got a terrific partner Paul, it's a bit far down the line for us to be worried about it," the 65-year-old said.

"But I see young people who want to express their love for each other through a marriage ceremony."

Both Labor and the Liberals oppose same-sex marriage, but Senator Brown said the major parties "should come into this century and catch up". ...

(5) Gillard against gay marriage

June 30, 2010

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she does not support legalising gay marriage in Australia.

Labor policy on gay marriage will remain the same under her prime ministership, Ms Gillard told Austereo show today.

"We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples," Ms Gillard said.

Asked if that was also her personal view, Ms Gillard said it was.

(6) Gillard's paid  paternity leave would also apply to Gay partners

Labor announces paternity leave for families to bond

Sue Dunlevy   Herald Sun   August 20, 2010 12:00AM  

NEW fathers would get two weeks' paid paternity leave under an extension of the Government's paid parental leave scheme.

The announcement came yesterday, during Prime Minister Julia Gillard's final speech before tomorrow's election.

And she told the National Press Club the election would be an "absolute cliffhanger".

Under the plan, the Government would pay working fathers two weeks' pay at the minimum wage (currently $570 a week) so they could take time off work. The money would also go to gay partners.

From July 2012, fathers would be able to claim the money even if their wife did not work and even if she did not receive the Government's 18 weeks' paid parental leave. ...

 - with Alison Rehn

(7) Motherly love 'does breed confidence'

26 July 2010 Last updated at 23:34 GMT

Being lavished with affection by your mum as a young child makes you better able to cope with the stresses and strains of adult life, say researchers.

Hugs, kisses and expressive declarations of love appear to rub off and foster emotional resilience.

The results are from nearly 500 people, from the US state of Rhode Island, who were studied as children and adults.

A secure mother-child bond may be key, the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health reports.

But experts say it is important to know when to stop. Over-mothering can be intrusive and embarrassing, especially as children grow older.

High levels of motherly affection are likely to facilitate secure attachments and bonding, say the study authors, led by Dr Joanna Maselko.

This not only lowers distress but may also help a child to develop effective life, social, and coping skills, which will stand them in good stead as adults.

In the study, a psychologist rated the quality of interactions between the mothers and their eight-month-old children during a routine developmental check-up.

The psychologist judged how well the mother responded to her child's emotions and needs, and gave her an "affection score" based on the warmth of the interaction.

Thirty years later, the researchers approached the children, who were now adults, and asked them to take part in a survey about their well-being and emotions.

The group was also asked whether they thought their mothers had been affectionate towards them, with responses ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree".

The results revealed that children whose mothers gave them lots of affection handled all types of distress better.

In particular, the children of warm mothers were far better at dealing with anxiety than those of emotionally cold mothers.

The researchers said: "It is striking that a brief observation of level of maternal warmth in infancy is associated with distress in adult offspring 30 years later."

They said the findings added to the growing evidence that early childhood helped set the stage for later life experiences, but said the influence of other factors, such as personality, upbringing and schooling, could not be ruled out.

Dr Terri Apter, a psychologist, writer and senior tutor at Newnham College, Cambridge, has studied the effects of mother-child relationships.

"What you really want is responsiveness as well as affection - a mother who is in sync with her baby," she said.

"Babies are not born knowing how to regulate their emotions. They learn by being distressed and being soothed.

"And a responsive mum will pick up on cues that a child has had enough."

A responsive mum will know not only when to give cuddles but also when to stop.

"If she is being responsive she will say: 'You are a big 12-year-old and I guess it is embarrassing if I kiss and squeeze you like I did when you were a baby'. And she won't make you feel bad about it," added Dr Apter.

(8) Simple test could detect Down's

Page last updated at 00:27 GMT, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 01:27 UK

By Emma Wilkinson

Health reporter, BBC News, in Rome

A blood test during pregnancy could one day replace more invasive tests for Down's syndrome, say researchers.

High-risk women are currently offered an amniocentesis test, which carries a risk of miscarriage.

But Dutch researchers told a fertility conference they are on the verge of developing an accurate way of testing the mother's blood for chromosome disorders in the foetus.

Experts said it was promising but early days.

The test is based on a series of "probes" that attach to specific points on a chromosome.

It is the same technique that is already used to detect problems in foetal DNA in samples taken from the amniotic fluid in the womb.

But the advantage of testing the mother's blood is that it is non-invasive, quick and carries no risks for the foetus. ...

(9) Women freeze eggs to wait for 'Mr Right'

Page last updated at 10:10 GMT, Monday, 28 June 2010 11:10 UK

By Emma Wilkinson

Health reporter, BBC News, in Rome

Women in their late 30s are freezing eggs because they are still hunting for "Mr Right", research suggests.

A study of women at a Belgian clinic found half wanted to freeze their eggs to take the pressure off finding a partner, a fertility conference heard.

A third were also having eggs frozen as an "insurance policy" against infertility.

Many students would also consider the procedure to focus on a career before motherhood, a separate UK survey found.

The study of nearly 200 students showed eight in 10 doing a medical degree would freeze their eggs to delay starting a family.

Among sports and education students half said they would consider it.

Egg freezing is still a relatively new technology, which enables a woman to save eggs for future IVF treatment if needed.

The chance of success is better with younger, healthier eggs, yet most women currently choosing the procedure are in their late 30s and opting for egg freezing as a "last resort". ...

(10) Tears as 'sniper' woman acquitted of murder

By Peter Gregory

March 4, 2006

A WOMAN who shot dead her husband from a "sniper's nest" at their central Victorian property yesterday gasped and burst into tears as she was found not guilty of murder.

Claire Margaret MacDonald, 39, hugged tearful supporters before leaving the Supreme Court with her lawyers.

As her support team spoke about a stunning legal victory, Mrs MacDonald said "I just want to go home", when pursued by reporters.

The jurors deliberated for 1? days before finding the mother of five young children, not guilty of murder and the alternative charge of manslaughter.

One juror appeared to wipe tears from her eyes as she left the court.

The verdict was delivered about five hours after the jurors asked questions in court about the legal concepts of self-defence and "beyond reasonable doubt".

In a 10-day trial, the jurors and Justice Geoffrey Nettle heard that Mrs MacDonald suffered physical, psychological and sexual abuse during her 17-year marriage to Warren John MacDonald.

She pleaded not guilty to murdering Mr MacDonald at their Acheron property, known as Breakaway Mountain, on September 30, 2004.

Senior defence counsel James Montgomery said the prosecution had to disprove that Mrs MacDonald acted in self-defence, or under provocation.

Prosecutor Ray Elston, SC, said in opening the trial that Mrs MacDonald lay in wait for 90 minutes before shooting her husband from a "sniper's nest", using a rifle from his extensive gun collection.

According to a recorded interview with police, she wore a camouflage T-shirt and hat, and rubber gloves. She fired six bullets after Mr MacDonald, 40, approached a Land Rover that he had been told had a flat battery.

He died from bullet wounds to his chest, abdomen and head.

Mr Elston said Mrs MacDonald executed her husband in a cold-blooded, calculated and determined way.

In his closing address, Mr Montgomery urged the jurors to acquit Mrs MacDonald.

He said she and the couple's children had been under the domination of a sadistic husband who used fear to control them.

Earlier, the jurors were told Mr MacDonald made his children perform push-ups as punishment, and once said he would shoot the then youngest child if his wife did not shut her up.

Witnesses said Mrs MacDonald had to perform labouring work when heavily pregnant. Mr MacDonald had also threatened to kill his wife if she ever left him.

In a police interview, Mrs MacDonald said she was treated like a slave. She said her husband did not like her having make-up, haircuts or sugar in her tea.

Mrs MacDonald said he humiliated her by making her take his boots off in front of others, and gave her the job of refilling his glass. He abused her verbally, insisted on sex every second night, and used anal sex as punishment, she said.

She said Mr MacDonald treated their eldest son like a "whipping boy" and made her hit their daughters with a "smacking stick", telling her to do it again if it was not hard enough.

Mrs MacDonald said she thought before the shooting that "if I didn't do it now, I would be the one that … would be dead". After firing the shots, she walked over to her husband, put her hands on him and "told him how much I hated him, and I hated him for making me do this".

Consultant psychiatrist Danny Sullivan gave evidence that Mrs MacDonald's position in her marriage fitted the psychological term of learned helplessness, in which a person in an abusive relationship believed they could not leave.

(11) Another "battered woman" walks free after execution-style murder of husband

Domestic violence: court affirms licence to kill as another "battered woman" walks free after execution-style murder of husband

Anna Marshall - 7 June 2010

On 4th March 2006, Claire Margaret McDonald gasped and burst into tears as a Victorian Supreme Court jury found her not guilty of the execution style murder of her husband, Warren John McDonald.

The court was told that McDonald had donned camouflage gear and lay in wait with a high-powered rifle for her husband to approach. She fired six shots, mortally wounding her husband.

McDonald successfully used the "battered woman syndrome" defence, claiming she had suffered years of abuse at the hands of her husband.

Within days, Queensland woman, Susan Falls, having probably read the media reports of Heather McDonald's stunning acquittal, decided to execute her abusive husband in the same fashion, in what prosecutors would describe as a cunning, calculated murder.

Falls paid a friend, Anthony Cummings-Creed $5,000 to buy a 22.calibre pistol with silencer on the black market.

On May 26, 2006 while her husband Rodney Falls was drinking at his pub, she made him a dish of curried prawns for his dinner, knowing that their children would not eat any of the dish. Falls crushed up a number of sleeping tablets and laced the prawns with the mixture, assuming that the curry would mask the taste of the sleeping tablets.

Following the meal, her husband became drowsy and fell asleep in his recliner.

Falls walked up to her husband, placed the pistol against his temple and fired. She told the court she could see the burn mark and smoke coming from the hole in his head. She waited two hours, and not sure her husband was dead, placed the pistol under his jaw and fired another shot.

After leaving the body in the house for three days, Falls called on Cummings-Creed and two other accomplices, Bradley James Coupe, 25 and Anthony James Hoare, 42, to help her clean the crime scene and dispose of the body. Rodney Falls body was dumped in the Mapleton State Forest.Mr Falls, 41, who worked from the couple's Caloundra home buying and selling on the internet, was the focus of an intense police search after his wife first reported him missing on June 2 then made a tearful public plea for information.

Mr Falls's body was later retrieved from dense bushland in Mapleton State Forest on June 25.

His family said after the trial that Mr Falls's death appeared to be "senseless . . . and a complete waste of an . . . all-round good person".

"He will always be remembered by all of us as a happy, loving person who loved nothing better than to have a drink and a laugh with his family and friends," they said.

Mrs Van Donselaar said her son had always been close to his family, especially his grandmother, and had left school before he was 15 but worked hard with his uncle to obtain his air conditioning, refrigerator and electrical licences.

"Being a very ambitious man, he then went on to obtain his builder's licence, building homes in Blacktown, Pelican Waters and Caloundra, where he lived for the last 10 years," she said.
"He met and married the girl next door and three beautiful girls followed in four years, then 10 years later the gift of his precious baby boy."

Mr Falls's sister Kim Page said the last time she spoke to her brother they were both excited about the prospect of her family moving to Caloundra later this year.

"Now all of our hopes and dreams for our future have been shattered. Our family will never be the same without Rodney."

In an amazing summing up, the judge appeared to be instructing the jury that it was OK for Susan Falls to murder her allegedly abusive husband. Supreme Court Justice Peter Applegarth said that while some witnesses had given evidence that they had not seen bruises on Mrs Falls in recent years, victims of domestic violence did not normally parade their injuries.

Justice Applegarth 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.

Justice Applegarth appeared to instruct the jury that notwithstanding Rodney Falls may have ceased abusing his wife after a separation in 2000, Susan Falls had a licence to kill him for his previous abuse.

Following the judge's summing up, the jurors, not surprisingly, took only 90 minutes to find Falls not guilty of murder and also not guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter. Her accomplices were found not guilty of the charge of accessory to murder.

Why didn't Susan Falls resort to a legal remedy?

The question remains: if Falls had the presence of mind and the planning skills to acquire a pistol with silencer, to lace her husband's meal with sleeping pills, to walk up to him and place a pistol to head and shoot, to fire another shot two hours later and to use co-conspirators to dispose of the body, why didn't she have the presence of mind to avail herself of one of the myriad of legal resources to deal with the problem?

For instance, with her planning skills she could worked with with her accomplices to install hidden cameras around the house. If her husband he was beating her as alleged, Falls could have gathered evidence that would have put him away long enough to divorce him and start a new life.

Capital punishment has long been abolished in Australia, but recent court decisions have set a legal precedent overturning this law, replacing it with a licence for "battered wives" to execute alleged abusive husbands.

Message to battered wives: open season on abusive husbands

Forget about refuges, AVO's, the police, the Family Court and other resources. There is a simpler and more permanent solution to your problem.

Just arm yourself with a gun, sharp knife or bottle of poison. Wait until your abusive husband is asleep or defenceless, then shoot, stab or poison him as the case may be.

No need to hide the body, just call the police and claim self-defence.

Get yourself a good defence lawyer who can bring a tear to the eyes of the jurors and you are home-free. You get the family assets and a new life.

You simply claim self-defence, you do not have to prove it. Australian law places the burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defence, an almost impossible task considering that the concept of self-defence is in the mind of the defendant. You only have to have a sincerely held belief that your life is in danger to claim self-defence.

And the recent cases of McDonald and Falls have shown that the perceived threat to your life does not have to be immediate, it can be at some time in the future. Falls' drugged husband obviously posed no threat at the time he was killed.

The self-defence law provides that if self-defence is accepted, you are to be acquitted not only of murder but also the lesser charge of manslaughter.

(12) Women who kill get soft sentences from Feminist judiciary

Women who kill get soft sentences from feminist-friendly judiciary

Judge lets female child killer walk free

Anna Marshall 14 July 2004

On August 4, 2003, New South Wales woman Daniela Dawes (pictured) forced her 10-year-old autistic son Jason's mouth closed and pinched his nose until he stopped struggling.

Describing the killing on Channel Nine's 60 Minutes program, Dawes said "He was playing. I, being in a depressed state, wasn't really up for playing. And I remember he ran off and I know I followed him into the rumpus room and then it was just something that was all happening before my eyes. I had no control over what was happening that day".

After laying Jason's body on his bed, she phoned work to say she would not be in.

The legal system bent over backwards to accommodate this callous murderer. The public prosecutor accepted a guilty plea on the lesser charge of manslaughter.

In an incredible move when sentencing Dawes for her unspeakable crime in the Parramatta court on June 2, 2004, Judge Roy Ellis said that she had suffered enough (never mind Jason) and let her walk free on a five-year good behaviour bond.

"I wish you all the best", said Judge Ellis as Dawes walked from the court and into a paid interview with TV host, Ray Martin.

Martin, host of A Current Affair, spoke to radio 2GB in defence of the interviews. "In the real world, people today . . . demand money for their stories. It would be fantastic if we didn't have to spend Mr Packer's money on these things," he said.

Dawes then took out an apprehended violence order against her husband, grabbed her remaining child and fled back to her home town.

When it was announced two weeks later that the Director of Public Prosecutions had appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was grossly inadequate, Martin called Dawes back for another interview.

Dawes has a make-over for Ray Martin

Gone was the frumpy woman with glasses, a look obviously cultivated for the court appearances. In her place was a glamorous woman with a stylish hair-do and no glasses. In an amazing role reversal the killer now played the victim. Here was the kind, innocent woman who could not understand why the legal system was persecuting her.

Martin, a notorious bleeding-heart, was sucked right in. He expressed concern about how this poor woman could cope with going back to court and with facing a possible jail sentence.

"So you're coming back to Sydney tomorrow" said Martin with a worried frown. "Where will you live, where will you stay, what will you do?".

Not one word of condemnation about Dawes' heinous crime from the unctuous Martin.

"Daniela, I wish you well", said Martin at the end of the interview, echoing Judge Ellis' words.

Is Dawes a psychopath?

It was all happening before my eyes but I didn't do it, is a trait of psychopaths who notoriously disclaim responsibility for their actions.

Portraying themselves as victims instead of perpetrators of crimes is another trait of psychopaths.

(13) 'Battered Woman' "could have rung the police after her husband fell asleep - instead of shooting him"

Caloundra mother acquitted of murdering husband

By Jason Rawlins

Updated June 3, 2010 17:18:00

A woman from Queensland's Sunshine Coast has been acquitted of murdering her husband.

Susan Falls, 42, from Caloundra admitted to shooting Rodney Falls twice in the head after drugging him at their family home in 2006.

But she pleaded not guilty to his murder, arguing she acted in self defence out of fear he would harm her or her children.

After 90 minutes of deliberations, a Supreme Court jury this afternoon found Falls not guilty of murder and not guilty of an alternative charge of manslaughter.

The jury also found three men accused of helping Falls get rid of her husband's body - Christopher Cummings-Creed, Anthony Hoare and Bradley Coupe - not guilty of being accessories to murder. ==

Susan Falls not guilty

by Mark Oberhardt The Courier-Mail June 03, 2010 4:57PM

A WOMAN accused of drugging and then murdering her allegedly abusive husband has been found not guilty on all charges.

Susan Falls, 42, had pleaded not guilty to murdering her husband Rodney Falls at their Caloundra home, on the Sunshine Coast, in May 2006.

Justice Peter Applegarth finished his final address to the Supreme Court jury after 3.15pm and sent the jury to deliberate. They returned shortly before 5pm to deliver their verdict of not guilty.

The two-week trial has heard Susan Falls drugged Rodney by putting sleeping tablets in his favourite meal of curried prawns.

When Rodney Falls was asleep she shot him in the head and then came back a couple of hours later and shot him again.

Defence lawyer Jeff Hunter, SC, told the jury Falls admitted killing her husband but did it in self-defence after 20 years of physical and mental abuse.

Prosecutor Greg Cummings has alleged it was a calculated and cunning murder. ==

From: Father John Brown <> Date: 25.06.2010 10:07 AM
Subject: The Susan Falls aquittal

To the Editor of Sunshine Coast Daily

Dear Editor,

I read your articles "She's Free" and "Susan's a hero, says relieved uncle", Page 1+4, Sunshine Coast Daily of 4th June, 2010:

In these above-named articles you report, that Mrs. Falls had confessed to lacing curried prawns with sleeping tablets, waiting until her husband had fallen asleep and then shooting him in the head twice.

She claims that she was defending herself and her children against violent death-threats of her husband. However how could have her husband be a death-threat to her and her children anymore, when he was asleep. Falls could have rang the police after her husband fell asleep and could have told them that she had to paralyse her husband because of his death-threats. The police had certainly taken care of her husband in a jail and a protection-order had put her and the children under protection.

Unfortunately she did not do this, because she must have been in a rush of hate and thus in a cold-blooded way shoot him to death and with the help of three associates concealed him somewhere. Every criminal wants to conceal his crime, because he/she knows and feels of the wrong-doing.

I certainly cannot understand the Jury-verdict, which must have been under the influence of drugs?!?

Lawyer Debbie King, the head of the women's prisoner support group "Sisters Inside" was a lawyer in this case.

 "Sisters Inside" is a male-hating Feminist - KGB, which is also supported by some members of the judiciary, including former Judge Carter.

 For that reason I would be not surprized when the jury in this case was rigged.

However the message is out there now for husbands. If she threatens you with the Family-Court or gets funny, kill her before she kills you. Life after the Family-Court is jail anyway, so what makes the difference.

I hope the Department of Prosecution is going to appeal this verdict.

Yours faithfully

No comments:

Post a Comment