Instead he was not only denied legal assistance but he was thwarted, isolated, and traumatised, by the government to prevent any form of appeal by him that would be able to reach the High Court. During that time Ivan was alleged to have committed other crimes, suffered hunger strikes, and self-harm just to prove his innocence.
Police corruption and
corporate greed led
the court during
Milat's trial in 1996
(THE FIRM) FRIENDS OF IVAN ROBERT MILAT
AUSTRALIA: ABC: "Australia's worst accused Ivan Milat, has admitted that the defence used in his trial was just a legal strategy and not based in any truth."
During Milat's trial for the murder of seven backpackers in 1996, his lawyers argued that the crimes could have been committed by one of his brothers in relation to the allegation made by a crown witness Paul Onions who claimed to have identified Ivan.
But in a series of PR stunts by the ABC these articles are presented to wind up viewers for ABC TV's Australian Story, Milat says his brothers were not involved in one of the worst set-ups in Australian history and his brothers say that Milat wasn't involved in one of the worst murders in Australian history
Eight years after being convicted of murdering seven young backpackers, Milat has few visitors to his cell in Supermax, a jail within a jail, with "no fresh air" or "sunlight".
There is evidence that the Legal Aid Commission of NSW denied Ivan "assistance" to grant him the "legal knowledge and understanding" necessary to produce legal arguments and grounds for his appeal.
To get to the High Court of Australia you need to be granted leave to appeal. Not every case is granted leave but one would argue that without proper legal assistance getting to the High Court would be a difficult task.
Instead Ivan MIlat was not only denied legal assistance but he was thwarted, isolated, and traumatised, by the government to prevent any form of appeal by him that would be able to reach the High Court. During that time Ivan was alleged to have committed other crimes, suffered hunger strikes, and self-harm just to prove his innocence.
Ivan remains in isolation at Goulburn's (HRMU) High Risk Management Unit. The HRMU was recently hailed by the Commissioner Ron Woodham as NSW terrorist prison where Australia's suspected terrorists and worst criminals are now allegedly following the Koran. Woodham claims he needs a new "AA" classification because they support Osama Bin Laden? And they could incite other criminals into a holy war on the Commissioner and blow up Long Bay's twin towers?
Perhaps a bit far fetched but that is the type of PR the New South Wales Corrective Services, the Un-Australian Newspaper and Ch/10 "seriously" get up to these days. These propaganda monsters are prepared to undertake the government's ideals without a doubt!
But Ivan still makes 6-minute phone calls to family members and his sister-in-law, Caroline Milat as well as the Department of Corrective Services who listen in and read his mail.
Allegedly during one phone call, recorded by Australian Story Milat admits for the first time that the defence of blaming one of his brothers was not based in truth.
But that's not the first time and is academic because we know why his lawyers chose that defence. They sought to test the witness Paul Onions to show the court that his description of Milat in reality could have been the same for anyone of Milat's brothers and was therefore not good enough to describe Ivan and therefore was not good enough to convict him.
Asked whether he would use the same defence if he were granted a retrial, Milat said: "I never argued that in the first place.
"I didn't know how that come into it. I was totally amazed when I was sitting there and I heard that - I had no idea.
"My basic defence in my trial was, 'it wasn't me'. I didn't know who did it. It was up to them to prove my guilt, not to me to prove my innocence," he said.
It is a key admission, although some police still believe other members of the Milat family were involved in the murders?
No! Police just read more into it because they needed to ensure Milat was convicted.
Caroline Milat still maintains that her brother-in-law is innocent and speaks with him about everything from family business to how he cleans his cell inside Australia's highest security jail.
Despite receiving death threats? Last weeks PR stunt, Ivan's older brother, Boris Milat, is calling for him to come clean about other murders and says it is time for his family to face the truth and stop living in denial.
But in reality Boris is the only sibling who has a grudge and who had been directly affected by Milat's previous encounters with his own family. Allegedly because Ivan got involved sexually with Boris Milat's family and caused one of the family members to become pregnant so he remains hostile.
Boris: "These people that are in denial of him have really got to get their act together," he said. "This is not just a murder, this is well above it."
Year right well above it? How about Framed for the tourist industry!
Boris: "I can tell you now, if this had happened to one of their kids [with] one-tenth of the evidence, they would accuse him straight away.
With one tenth of the evidence and a grudge!
Boris: "They've got to really put the bigger picture on and the bigger picture is seven people lost their lives in a horrific, cold-blooded, terrifying [way]. It's not as though you come and shot some guy walking down the street - this was terror.
But Boris regardless of the horror it does not mean people should be nailed to the wall for the crime just for the sake of the tourist industries 20 billion a year income because that leaves the murderer out on the street murdering other people?
Boris: "That's where I feel very strongly about it. I don't care if any member of my family talks to me again - I've got to express my horror for what he's done."
Because as Australian Story reported last week that he holds a grudge!
Most of Milat's 11 surviving siblings publicly deny his guilt.
That means it's a different story in private as reported by Everyone's ABC. The community often refer to Everyone's ABC as 'government propaganda' and say they should be impartial and objective.
The Reason for the propaganda?
The Milat tapes will air on Australian Story at 8:00pm today on ABC TV.
Related
THE FIRM: FRIENDS OF IVAN ROBERT MILAT
Statement of Evidence
By Ivan Robert Milat
Statement of Innocence by Ivan Milat
May 15, 1998 - Two Years After Show Trial.
That morning of my arrest and the circumstances the police used to justify it. Paul Onions (crown witness} was given 13 photos to look at and he chose me. He had no choice - I was the only one with the blackhair and the type of moustache, similar to the description he gave to police after he was robbed at gunpoint near the Belanglo Forest in 1990. He looks at photos and then writes out a statement to back up his description.
It was unreal. It was all there, my pepper and salt hair, colour of eyes, etc. I had to agree it was my photo he looked at in 1994, as it was one from 1990. They (police) changed the 1990 description Onions originally gave in Bowral at the police station. At that interview he said his attacker was 6 foot tall, black hair, Merv Hughes moustache aged mid thirties(The original statement Onions made to the police has never surfaced). The eyes of his attacker went from wearing dark sub-glasses to narrow squint eyes. He made the original statement to police 20 minutes after his attack. Onions had been in his assailant's car for over an hour. His first description would be accurate.
It was not until Onions returned to Australia in 1994 that the matter of Yugoslav parents and my divorce were mentioned as part of conversation with Onions robber. I complained that there were no other people in the 13 photos shown to Onions that resembled me in the photo lineup of 1994. The police answer to that was "the description given by witness Onions was sufficient."
They (the Police) found a shirt at mum's place and said it was stolen from Onions. My wife who had left me in 1987 came to court to say she had bought it at K Mart. It was a plain shirt similar to the type road workers use. My wife insisted it was my shirt as I always wore that type of shirt. I can't understand why on that day only, they photographed that shirt and nothing else. MY wife said "yes, that is Ivan's shirt", at the trial. But the police during 1994 visited Onions in the UK and Onions claimed it was his.
Onion's robber drove a vehicle with a special feature in the placement of the spare wheel. Onions and another eyewitness to the robbery corroborated each other on the outstanding feature of the vehicle, the spare wheel, but they were both wrong when it was proved to the court that the wheel on my vehicle could not have been seen by them. This "mistake" was glossed over by the Crown. The judge told the jury it was hard to see how such a mistake could be made, but they should consider the matter. The judge went on to say that they could consider another scenario. " I think the accused stole or somehow got another vehicle of similar make and had the extras the two witnesses had described.
Who did I borrow or steal the vehicle from? A vehicle other than my own was not part of the case. The charges against me were totally circumstantial. The police fitted together a case which was impossible for me to defend. They fitted the crimes to times when I was away from work or weekends. There was much argument on this matter of dates. And because the crimes had been committed 6 years before - I defy anyone to have total recall of their whereabouts at any given time.
The crown then decided on a second scenario, now they said that a group of people were involved in the crimes. They had no idea and were making a circumstantial case on a circumstantial case. What a turn-up! How can you beat a system like that? They were now saying I was part of a group. I have never seen or heard of the police following up investigations into this wild theory put before the court.
There was property at my place including a tent. I knew nothing about it. Then there was a camera - Paul Onions for the crown swore black and blue that the camera was his. I tried to explain that the camera belonged to my sister Shirley who shared the house with me. Then, OOPS! It is discovered that the camera was not manufactured until 1991. Onions had been robbed in 1990. This "small" matter no problem for the crown, they then claimed the camera could have belonged to one of the UK victims.
The tent, was owned by my brother Dick. The tent was doctored to make believe that the tent belonged to a UK victim. There was much argument argument about this tent and identifying marks. When that tent came to light Dick was able to prove where he had bought it. I often wonder why the media never took this issue up in their reporting of the case. I expect the police don't give out many parking tickets to reporters.
I had come to believe in the science of DNA. They had DNA from both the UK female victims. Police took blood and hair samples from me. Human hair found clasped in the hand of one of the UK girls - there was no match with me. No wonder I was confident going into the trial. The car described by the two witnesses did not match mine + the DNA. A week before the matter of the DNA came into the trial the crown came up with a new report on the DNA. It was from the lab that did the tests saying the tests could be flawed. I still believe The first report to be the true one. I insisted that the tests be done again. The crown said that it was not possible - the hairs gone-missing-destroyed during the tests.
What a joke. The so called expert said the samples could have been contaminated. It could not be tested again. I was not happy with my defence counsel. They were way out their depth with the science evidence. Plastic tape used to bind the victims were found at the crime scene. Those ties had no markings on them. At my home the police took similar tapes as evidence. The tapes had markings on them. All of a sudden the tapes from the crime scene had similar markings on them. An expert on the tapes gave evidence that the tapes allegedly found at the crime scene were sold exclusively to organisations like the Roads and Traffic Authority - my employer.
No matter what. I will always profess my innocence.
Best regards Ivan
More: THE FIRM
http://users.tpg.com.au/brianrav/index.htm
Death threats made in Milat family feud: Everyone's ABC?
On top of that Milat has been mistreated in custody and in fact has been thwarted from trying to appeal his case in the High Court in a number of ways and means thought up by Commissioner Ron Woodham and the HRMU and one wonders why? The states commissioner claiming amongst other things attempted escapes showing Milat's X-rays with razor blades etc.
More: http://www.adelaide.indymedia.org.au/newswire/display/7404/index.php
Australian prisoners' linked to Bin Laden: Ten News
Hatzistergos: "For example, because of a perceived risk that they may engage in, or incite other persons to engage in, terrorist activities."
Terrorist prisoners held in a "box within a box" with no "fresh air or sunlight" at Goulburn HRMU may incite alleged terrorists in Long Bay to blow up Long Bay Prison's Twin Towers?
More: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/11/300344.html
corporate greed led
the court during
Milat's trial in 1996
(THE FIRM) FRIENDS OF IVAN ROBERT MILAT
AUSTRALIA: ABC: "Australia's worst accused Ivan Milat, has admitted that the defence used in his trial was just a legal strategy and not based in any truth."
During Milat's trial for the murder of seven backpackers in 1996, his lawyers argued that the crimes could have been committed by one of his brothers in relation to the allegation made by a crown witness Paul Onions who claimed to have identified Ivan.
But in a series of PR stunts by the ABC these articles are presented to wind up viewers for ABC TV's Australian Story, Milat says his brothers were not involved in one of the worst set-ups in Australian history and his brothers say that Milat wasn't involved in one of the worst murders in Australian history
Eight years after being convicted of murdering seven young backpackers, Milat has few visitors to his cell in Supermax, a jail within a jail, with "no fresh air" or "sunlight".
There is evidence that the Legal Aid Commission of NSW denied Ivan "assistance" to grant him the "legal knowledge and understanding" necessary to produce legal arguments and grounds for his appeal.
To get to the High Court of Australia you need to be granted leave to appeal. Not every case is granted leave but one would argue that without proper legal assistance getting to the High Court would be a difficult task.
Instead Ivan MIlat was not only denied legal assistance but he was thwarted, isolated, and traumatised, by the government to prevent any form of appeal by him that would be able to reach the High Court. During that time Ivan was alleged to have committed other crimes, suffered hunger strikes, and self-harm just to prove his innocence.
Ivan remains in isolation at Goulburn's (HRMU) High Risk Management Unit. The HRMU was recently hailed by the Commissioner Ron Woodham as NSW terrorist prison where Australia's suspected terrorists and worst criminals are now allegedly following the Koran. Woodham claims he needs a new "AA" classification because they support Osama Bin Laden? And they could incite other criminals into a holy war on the Commissioner and blow up Long Bay's twin towers?
Perhaps a bit far fetched but that is the type of PR the New South Wales Corrective Services, the Un-Australian Newspaper and Ch/10 "seriously" get up to these days. These propaganda monsters are prepared to undertake the government's ideals without a doubt!
But Ivan still makes 6-minute phone calls to family members and his sister-in-law, Caroline Milat as well as the Department of Corrective Services who listen in and read his mail.
Allegedly during one phone call, recorded by Australian Story Milat admits for the first time that the defence of blaming one of his brothers was not based in truth.
But that's not the first time and is academic because we know why his lawyers chose that defence. They sought to test the witness Paul Onions to show the court that his description of Milat in reality could have been the same for anyone of Milat's brothers and was therefore not good enough to describe Ivan and therefore was not good enough to convict him.
Asked whether he would use the same defence if he were granted a retrial, Milat said: "I never argued that in the first place.
"I didn't know how that come into it. I was totally amazed when I was sitting there and I heard that - I had no idea.
"My basic defence in my trial was, 'it wasn't me'. I didn't know who did it. It was up to them to prove my guilt, not to me to prove my innocence," he said.
It is a key admission, although some police still believe other members of the Milat family were involved in the murders?
No! Police just read more into it because they needed to ensure Milat was convicted.
Caroline Milat still maintains that her brother-in-law is innocent and speaks with him about everything from family business to how he cleans his cell inside Australia's highest security jail.
Despite receiving death threats? Last weeks PR stunt, Ivan's older brother, Boris Milat, is calling for him to come clean about other murders and says it is time for his family to face the truth and stop living in denial.
But in reality Boris is the only sibling who has a grudge and who had been directly affected by Milat's previous encounters with his own family. Allegedly because Ivan got involved sexually with Boris Milat's family and caused one of the family members to become pregnant so he remains hostile.
Boris: "These people that are in denial of him have really got to get their act together," he said. "This is not just a murder, this is well above it."
Year right well above it? How about Framed for the tourist industry!
Boris: "I can tell you now, if this had happened to one of their kids [with] one-tenth of the evidence, they would accuse him straight away.
With one tenth of the evidence and a grudge!
Boris: "They've got to really put the bigger picture on and the bigger picture is seven people lost their lives in a horrific, cold-blooded, terrifying [way]. It's not as though you come and shot some guy walking down the street - this was terror.
But Boris regardless of the horror it does not mean people should be nailed to the wall for the crime just for the sake of the tourist industries 20 billion a year income because that leaves the murderer out on the street murdering other people?
Boris: "That's where I feel very strongly about it. I don't care if any member of my family talks to me again - I've got to express my horror for what he's done."
Because as Australian Story reported last week that he holds a grudge!
Most of Milat's 11 surviving siblings publicly deny his guilt.
That means it's a different story in private as reported by Everyone's ABC. The community often refer to Everyone's ABC as 'government propaganda' and say they should be impartial and objective.
The Reason for the propaganda?
The Milat tapes will air on Australian Story at 8:00pm today on ABC TV.
Related
THE FIRM: FRIENDS OF IVAN ROBERT MILAT
Statement of Evidence
By Ivan Robert Milat
Statement of Innocence by Ivan Milat
May 15, 1998 - Two Years After Show Trial.
That morning of my arrest and the circumstances the police used to justify it. Paul Onions (crown witness} was given 13 photos to look at and he chose me. He had no choice - I was the only one with the blackhair and the type of moustache, similar to the description he gave to police after he was robbed at gunpoint near the Belanglo Forest in 1990. He looks at photos and then writes out a statement to back up his description.
It was unreal. It was all there, my pepper and salt hair, colour of eyes, etc. I had to agree it was my photo he looked at in 1994, as it was one from 1990. They (police) changed the 1990 description Onions originally gave in Bowral at the police station. At that interview he said his attacker was 6 foot tall, black hair, Merv Hughes moustache aged mid thirties(The original statement Onions made to the police has never surfaced). The eyes of his attacker went from wearing dark sub-glasses to narrow squint eyes. He made the original statement to police 20 minutes after his attack. Onions had been in his assailant's car for over an hour. His first description would be accurate.
It was not until Onions returned to Australia in 1994 that the matter of Yugoslav parents and my divorce were mentioned as part of conversation with Onions robber. I complained that there were no other people in the 13 photos shown to Onions that resembled me in the photo lineup of 1994. The police answer to that was "the description given by witness Onions was sufficient."
They (the Police) found a shirt at mum's place and said it was stolen from Onions. My wife who had left me in 1987 came to court to say she had bought it at K Mart. It was a plain shirt similar to the type road workers use. My wife insisted it was my shirt as I always wore that type of shirt. I can't understand why on that day only, they photographed that shirt and nothing else. MY wife said "yes, that is Ivan's shirt", at the trial. But the police during 1994 visited Onions in the UK and Onions claimed it was his.
Onion's robber drove a vehicle with a special feature in the placement of the spare wheel. Onions and another eyewitness to the robbery corroborated each other on the outstanding feature of the vehicle, the spare wheel, but they were both wrong when it was proved to the court that the wheel on my vehicle could not have been seen by them. This "mistake" was glossed over by the Crown. The judge told the jury it was hard to see how such a mistake could be made, but they should consider the matter. The judge went on to say that they could consider another scenario. " I think the accused stole or somehow got another vehicle of similar make and had the extras the two witnesses had described.
Who did I borrow or steal the vehicle from? A vehicle other than my own was not part of the case. The charges against me were totally circumstantial. The police fitted together a case which was impossible for me to defend. They fitted the crimes to times when I was away from work or weekends. There was much argument on this matter of dates. And because the crimes had been committed 6 years before - I defy anyone to have total recall of their whereabouts at any given time.
The crown then decided on a second scenario, now they said that a group of people were involved in the crimes. They had no idea and were making a circumstantial case on a circumstantial case. What a turn-up! How can you beat a system like that? They were now saying I was part of a group. I have never seen or heard of the police following up investigations into this wild theory put before the court.
There was property at my place including a tent. I knew nothing about it. Then there was a camera - Paul Onions for the crown swore black and blue that the camera was his. I tried to explain that the camera belonged to my sister Shirley who shared the house with me. Then, OOPS! It is discovered that the camera was not manufactured until 1991. Onions had been robbed in 1990. This "small" matter no problem for the crown, they then claimed the camera could have belonged to one of the UK victims.
The tent, was owned by my brother Dick. The tent was doctored to make believe that the tent belonged to a UK victim. There was much argument argument about this tent and identifying marks. When that tent came to light Dick was able to prove where he had bought it. I often wonder why the media never took this issue up in their reporting of the case. I expect the police don't give out many parking tickets to reporters.
I had come to believe in the science of DNA. They had DNA from both the UK female victims. Police took blood and hair samples from me. Human hair found clasped in the hand of one of the UK girls - there was no match with me. No wonder I was confident going into the trial. The car described by the two witnesses did not match mine + the DNA. A week before the matter of the DNA came into the trial the crown came up with a new report on the DNA. It was from the lab that did the tests saying the tests could be flawed. I still believe The first report to be the true one. I insisted that the tests be done again. The crown said that it was not possible - the hairs gone-missing-destroyed during the tests.
What a joke. The so called expert said the samples could have been contaminated. It could not be tested again. I was not happy with my defence counsel. They were way out their depth with the science evidence. Plastic tape used to bind the victims were found at the crime scene. Those ties had no markings on them. At my home the police took similar tapes as evidence. The tapes had markings on them. All of a sudden the tapes from the crime scene had similar markings on them. An expert on the tapes gave evidence that the tapes allegedly found at the crime scene were sold exclusively to organisations like the Roads and Traffic Authority - my employer.
No matter what. I will always profess my innocence.
Best regards Ivan
More: THE FIRM
http://users.tpg.com.au/brianrav/index.htm Death threats made in Milat family feud: Everyone's ABC?
On top of that Milat has been mistreated in custody and in fact has been thwarted from trying to appeal his case in the High Court in a number of ways and means thought up by Commissioner Ron Woodham and the HRMU and one wonders why? The states commissioner claiming amongst other things attempted escapes showing Milat's X-rays with razor blades etc.
More:
http://www.adelaide.indymedia.org.au/newswire/display/7404/index.php Australian prisoners' linked to Bin Laden: Ten News
Hatzistergos: "For example, because of a perceived risk that they may engage in, or incite other persons to engage in, terrorist activities."
Terrorist prisoners held in a "box within a box" with no "fresh air or sunlight" at Goulburn HRMU may incite alleged terrorists in Long Bay to blow up Long Bay Prison's Twin Towers?
More:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/11/300344.html 
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following comment
I firmly believe Ivan was framed
22.07.2005 21:59
1. The Bennetton top allegedly taken from one of the victims was purchased from a Sydney retail outlet. This evidence was known to both the crown and the
defence.
2. Property belonging to Simone Schmidl were taken from the home of a Ms Murphy at Guildford.
3. Property belonging to Simone Schmidl was found at
Bright, Victoria. Some of these items were later found at the home of Ivan Milat. How they got there should be a matter for the Police Integrity Commission.
4. The blue day pack allegedly belonging to Simone Schmidl discovered at Walter Milat's home could not have belonged to her. A family photo of the backpack at Walter's home was taken prior to Simone's death.
5. Arresting detectives were captured by the television news carrying fully formed cartons into the Milat home.
6. Ivan and Richard Milat explained to police the origin of some items at both their homes. Backpacks held up in court as 'evidence' appeared to be new and unused. Statements that those brands could only be purchased in Europe were fabrications.
7. Simone Schmidl's mother was not examined nor a statement taken from her regarding certain items that she had earlier identified and were found in Victoria.
8. The incompetent handling of the DNA evidence was detrimental to the defence case. No description was led as to the colour of the hairs found in the hand of one of the victims. Recent re-examination of the DNA evidence has cleared Ivan Milat and all members of his family. This should be making headlines - but still Ivan Milat remains incarcerated.
9. The loss of Paul Onions' original statement coupled with the original Joanne Berry statement raises suspicions. These statements were made at separate police stations. Neither the police nor the witnesses retained a copy of the original statements. This is suggestive that there was hiding or destruction of these documents. In his original statement Paul Onions had described a man around six feet tall with a spare wheel mounted on the back of his car. This does not fit the description of Ivan Milat at all.
10. To depict sightings by credible witnesses as false was designed to undermine and mislead the evidence that supported a different pattern to the police theory.
11. The police failed to video record the search of the Milat residences. This reflects on the integrity of the police searches.
12. If the second statement by Paul Onions was so credible, why was Ivan Milat not arrested sooner?
13. Only one item of evidence was produced with a fingerprint on it. For the police and crown to suggest that Ivan wiped all of the items free of prints or wore latex gloves was ludicrous considering the amount of property concerned.
14. Forensic evidence showed neither the Bowie knife or the blunt sword found at Ivan's mother's place could have been used in the attacks on the victims. Of all the guns seized from Milat family members not on of them was ever fired in Belanglo Forest. Ivan Milat maintains a Ruger rifle part was planted in his home and recent sackings of corrupt police suggest they were indeed capable of such acts.
15. A vital witness, Jock Pittiway, gave Alex Milat a backpack. PIttiway also gave a trailer load of items to Richard Milat. Pittiway should have been investigated by police.
I believe this is a monumental frame-up similar to that of the Hilton Bombers in the 60s and it is politically motivated.
There has been political interference at every level of Ivan's various appeals.
I believe it is no co-incidence that Ivan lodges yet another appeal and suddenly the negative publicity appears in the media.
Observer