By MAMAMIA NEWS
Adrian Bayley, the man who has pleaded guilty to the rape and murder of Melbourne woman Jill Meagher, had a history of sexual violence that stretched over a decade.
This morning the Supreme Court of Victoria lifted suppression orders on this case, meaning that Adrian Bayley’s disturbing past – which includes conviction as a rapist convicted on multiple accounts – has been revealed.
To think that the violent death of this young woman in a Brunswick backstreet could have been prevented, is sickening in the extreme.
It turns out that Bayley was not only known to police, but had committed similar crimes in the past (which thankfully had not resulted in the victims’ deaths). Unbelievably, it also appears that Bayley should have been prison at the time he killed Meagher.
Bayley broke a 20-year-old man’s jaw in Geelong in 2011, while still on parole for earlier sex-related crimes. He had previously served eight years in prison for rapes committed against sex workers between 2000-2001, also in the St Kilda area.
It is currently unclear why Bayley was not considered to have breached his parole, when he bashed the man in Geelong. Surely, given his violent past, this means he should have been in jail by the time he raped and killed Ms Meagher in September of last year?
Mamamia will keep readers updated on this case in the coming days. But sadly, it seems that the terrible ordeal Ms Meagher’s family have gone through, is a very, very long way from over.
Top Comments
So f***Ing disgusting. Unfortunately part of the reason they give shorter sentences for rape is to give rapists an incentive not to murder their victim (often the only witness). Charming conundrum, right?
I remember sitting in my own trial, giving evidence, and knowing that my attacker had been charged with rape and multiple assaults etc before. I remember looking at the jury thinking "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS MAN IS LIKE" but also knowing that the judicial system requires that they didn't know (or they'd be so biased they'd convict him immediately).
He got off. The jury still wouldn't know what he's done, and who they've let walk free...again.
I had a real problem with the Defence barrister though. I know he's just doing his job - but he knew what this man had done to me, and he knew what he's done previously - and yet he still used every trick in the book to lie, twist my words, twist the meaning of the evidence, intimidate me into confusion, and create reasonable doubt. As I said - that's his job, I understand that - but how could you live with yourself?
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Plenty of people out there with crap fathers or absent fathers and they don't spend there life raping and klling women. Maybe he is just a sociopath who should have been kept locked away from society forever. Not really sure what how he looks has to do with anything either.
Indeed. The courts lenience towards people with a crap childhood, crap upbringing, mental illness is just astounding. What of those who have no inclination to harm others? It makes no sense. They should be sectioned off from the rest of society.