She will now, she lost her 33 year non-parole period. Not that she was likely to make it out alive anyway, she doesn’t look like someone who would live into their 80’s
Yeah, the “likely” in the headline probably refers to the slim chance that she successfully appeals this decision to the High Court.
I don’t think the HCA would touch this. But then again they freed Pell so what do I know.
The “jurors kept in the same hotel as witnesses” could be an area the HCA wants to make a precedent on, the same reason leave to appeal was granted by the VCA. Even though it seemed unlikely that the way it played out could have resulted in a tainted jury (which is why the VCA rightly dismissed the appeal after granting leave), I could see a desire to set some boundaries to stop it happening again.
I forget the details of the mobile phone data evidence, but again, given the VCA decided to grant leave, it seems a potentially novel area of law that the HCA may want to set some rules around.
Those would be the only reason I could see the HCA taking the case.
You can see the prosecution’s plan. Give her a long non-parole period you know she is going to appeal then hit her with the removal of it so she is in for life.
Suck shit you evil, arrogant bitch.
I have heard unsubstantiated scuttlebutt that her community knew she was a bit funny.
If only they had been able to get her the help she needed beforehand.
The help society now needs is retribution and being made an example off.
The problem is, being made an example of is not the deterrent normies think it is. The publicity and exposure is what some sociopaths thrive on.
Worth remembering that her ex, the person many believe was the primary target of her murders, didn’t come to lunch that day, despite her specifically urging that he be there. His comments seem to imply that he may already have been suspicious of her motives.
