brisbane autistic boy's hands blown by sadistic mate

Post Reply New Topic

I meant ran from the scene as in trying to distance themselves from the victim and the scene of the accident, not take cover from the explosive device itself.

I think you should go back and have another go at the difference between deductive reasoning and flat out fabrication.

Have a nice day.

I'm serious, go back, watch the video and read the article again. I think you have got more than carried away on this.

The most incriminating statement came from the female witness in my opinion.

I would think if they were innocent, they would have come back to help this unfortunate young man.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

No more carried away than anyone else here. If you don't agree with my deduction then fine, I don't care. But it's a reasonable hypothesis and it wouldn't surprise me if that turned out to be the case.

No, some are sticking to the facts. No, there is not enough evidence for me to agree with your assumptions. Your theory is plausible.

Let's see if the local police determine it to be as serious an offence and prove you correct.

Yes, that's what I would expect but they took off which looks guilty as sin.
I guess we'll see....

I'm personally very sorry to hear about this boy's horrific injuries.

Just as I was sorry to hear about the young man who was set alight by his workmate here in australia.

seems it is extremely dangerous to have AS these days.....

I hope the police can get some justice for this family

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 6639890737

According to this article, all the boys who were present were injured, and the police say all indications are that it was an accidental detonation rather than a deliberate attack.

Other sources seem to indicate that my guess was incorrect and that there were in fact ball bearings in the device, which really makes me want to know how they hollowed out the golfball and what they filled it with. More and more, this is sounding like sheer stupidity rather than malice, as it would seem the reason for including the ball bearings was because an internet recipe said to do it rather than because they were deliberately trying to make an anti-personnel device.

Unless the Australian legal system is radically different than the US one, the starting presumption is innocence, and it's up to the prosecution to prove all of these elements of intent and such. You may think the evidence alone is sufficient, but that's not how it works in court; absent a smoking gun like an email exchange concerning blowing up the kid with a bomb and/or printed instructions on how to make and use it,, it's much less cut and dried than you're making it out to be. I managed to lay out reasonable doubt in 5 minutes on the internet, an actual defense attorney could do a whole lot more than that in court.

Also, you seem to have missed the part in my previous post where I mentioned my own experience with homemade tennis ball bombs and people hurling them from cars, which could explain how an unexploded golf ball bomb came to be lying by the side of the road for some teens to pick up. They could argue that they were just trying to scam their friend with this funky golf ball they found without knowing what it was; that's how reasonable doubt is established.

Panic does funny stuff to people, the lizard brain takes over and goes into self preservation mode, which usually doesn't include much concern for others. That's why so much military, police, and medical training is designed to subject people to stress and help them overcome panic, as otherwise they'd be unable to perform their duties. The fact that a bunch of teens ran from a horrific explosion is not damning in and of itself, it's just not realistic to expect a different response from people that young. I took advanced first aid pretty young and had a few occasions to use it, but I also run towards fires and mayhem, and that is not normal behavior.

That may be so.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Considering the article says that the victim was playing with it by tossing it up and down, I seriously doubt that an impact from it being thrown from a car at god knows what speed wouldn't have set it off initially, especially since that has more impact than someones hands at tossing speed, which did set it off. Either way, these are the known facts, and why I have issues with the whole thing:

Suspects give golf ball to victim claiming there are drugs inside it. At this point they've already told one lie, so their credibility is already suspect. 1. Who would ever claim that anything was inside a golf ball, even as a random joke? What sense does that even make? IMO Absolutely none, it's too much of a coincidence.

Then:
Victim starts playing with the golf ball and it explodes, causing severe damage to the victim's hands. It's been established that the explosive contained material for shrapnel damage, indicating it was meant to severely mame a the least. Imagine if it had exploded at the victims head, he might've been laying in a morge instead of a hospitol bed.

In the end, the victim was injured severely and whether people like it or not, the kids that gave him the golf ball to begin with are going to be prime suspects simply because they are the ones that gave it to him and lied about it's "contents". Just because they were there when it went off doesn't mean they knew nothing about it, and considering that they took off after the blast, that doesn't exactly look good on their credibility either.
I'm not assuming they're guilty (though you, and others, seemed to have concluded that I am), I'm saying that making the assumption that they weren't involved in the creation of this device or it's purpose is a bad idea and will only lead to biased assumptions in the investigation.
Rule number 1 in police investigation: Rule no-one out, assume nothing.

The theory I have presented is based on this evidence and testimony, therefore it is possible that it is the case. I'm sure every cop with the same information would come to the same logical conclusion until new evidence is presented.

No-one said they were expecting it to go off, they may well have known about it and thought it may go off when they weren't there. The point is, at this time no-one knows for sure why they took off, however they cannot be ruled out as suspects on purely the basis of a real response to an explosion.
If they had planned it and built the device, it stands to reason that they didn't know what they were doing in terms of explosive power, so they may also have expected a blast, but not one so strong. It runs both ways and that's why they can't be ruled out as suspects. They may have planned it only as a small time prank, and only evidence from the device (or what's left of it) will tell for sure.

I'm not trying to argue that they had nothing to do with it, what I'm doing is demonstrating that it's possible that this was an accident, or at least far from what was intended. There is a lot of jumping to conclusions and calling for blood going on in this thread, and I'm trying to show people that they need to wait for all the information to come in and not assume facts that are not in evidence. I have to do this quite often here, as the Aspie black and white thing can lead to some really ugly threads if left unchecked.

That doesn't actually mean anything, explosives are notoriously unpredictable, especially low order ones. My childhood tennis ball bombs could be thrown repeatedly at a brick wall without going off, and then explode when simply rolled down the street, or vise versa; it's all about friction and impact hitting things at exactly the right time and place, which can seem truly random.



Who says that a joke has to make sense? Telling a lie as part of a joke is hardly an impeachment of someone's character, as nearly *any* joke involves some element of deception. Perhaps the golf ball smelled funny, and they were trying to get him to sniff it; the point is, we don't know with any certainty what the intent was yet, and speculating is just that, speculation.



If the defense is that they didn't give him the ball expecting it to explode, what difference does it make that it contained shrapnel? That would be relevant if it could be established that the explosion was intentional, as it would prove intent to cause harm, but absent that proof of intent, it doesn't actually mean anything.



I'm not saying they're not, I'm saying that their guilt is not a foregone conclusion.



But it does suggest that they were not expecting the blast, or at the very least the magnitude of it. Would you sit right next to someone who was handling what you knew to be an unstable explosive device loaded with shrapnel? That, and I believe I've adequately addressed the running away part.



Yes, and not assuming is exactly what I'm doing; I'm poking holes in the assumption guilt that so many people in this thread are making. Before I entered this thread, I you hadn't said a single thing expressing any doubt at all that the accused were guilty, just ranting about how easy the criminals have it and how punishment should be more severe. I could argue you on that, but that's not what this thread is about, come down to PPR sometime if you want to have that argument.



Cops are not supposed to come up with theories until they have all the evidence, otherwise they get tunnel vision and try and make the evidence fit the theory. It's an easy trap to fall into.