Downer murder produces first murder conviction in Canberra since 1998

johnboy 25 March 2011 46

downer murder site

No case has created as much heated discussion on this site as the Downer murders of 2008 where Struan Bolas and Julie Franco were killed and their house set on fire in Downer.

In fact the families of the victims are largely responsible for this site bringing in pre-emptive comment moderation.

The Canberra Times reports that Scott Alexander McDougall has this morning been found guilty of both the murders by Justice Malcolm Gray, the first murder conviction in the ACT since 1998.

So if you kill two people, set fire to the house, sit in your car covered in blood until the police find you, and admit the killings, you can, in fact, be found guilty of murder in Canberra.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
46 Responses to Downer murder produces first murder conviction in Canberra since 1998
Filter
Order
Mr Gillespie Mr Gillespie 10:35 am 30 Jul 11

At the court, I waved to him Goodbye, as he was led away in handcuffs, never to ever see daylight or taste freedom again.

johnboy johnboy 10:31 am 30 Jul 11

Where and when did you say that Mr G?

Mr Gillespie Mr Gillespie 10:25 am 30 Jul 11

EvanJames #43

Huh? Life means life.

“In respect of the murder of Struan Bolas committed on 10 September 2008, I sentence you to imprisonment for life.

In respect of the murder of Julie Tattersall committed on 10 September 2008, I sentence you to imprisonment for life.”

No parole period has been set.

Life means life.

As I said to McDougall, BYE!!

EvanJames EvanJames 10:20 am 30 Jul 11

15 years. How odd. I thought that murder, with intent, meant life?

cleo cleo 4:43 am 30 Jul 11

Ian # 7

Looks like I was right, the monster got double life, and 5 years for arson, about the ten years when monster can apply for parole, that’s just a charade with the courts, that will never happen to a convicted murderer with double life, especially what the psychiatrist had to say about monster.
I expect monster to try and commit suicide, monster won’t succeed as he is a coward.

cleo cleo 10:44 pm 30 Mar 11

Ian # 7

Yes we shall wait for the sentencing, found guilty of double murder, pleaded guilty to arson, out on parole for attempted murder and grievous bodily harm, did three years for that.
I think the previous judge missed something there. He stabbed another friend over thirty times, and has done at least 5 break and enters.

Oh I think he will be going away for a long long time, I can see back to back life in prison, without parole.

Not Not 5:30 pm 29 Mar 11

Mysteryman said :

Not said :

I know what exactly what it going on. Too many sheltered years of living in an safe, clean and wealthy city has you wrapped up bubble wrap. Aside from the whole opinion of the courts and the way they operate, the number of murders in Canberra wont change. They haven’t in the last 50 years. There would still be rumors and judgments flying around even if it appeared all was well in the courts. Most of us tend to forget that there is nothing you are able to control in the world but for how much you appreciate your own life. Everything else is beyond us. So while it might seem like it serves as deterrent for other would be killers, convicting murders and jailing them for eternity does nothing to make for a safer world. History clearly shows us this. What is the real issue here for you paranoid people? Vengeance is not logical explainable here as I am sure you would not let anyone else do your bidding for you? Soft or not soft on crime would be irrelevant because we would all be vigilantes and making our own minds up. But since we have all chosen to have a representative do that we will stay indoors for now.

And it would be He, standing over there in distance waiving a copy of the Canberra Times at you and not caring.

There are a number of problems with what you’re saying. I don’t have the time to expound on all of them, but I will say this:

Firstly, regardless of your views on publications like the Canberra Times, the quotes contained in the articles are what I was referring to, not the articles themselves. Unless you’re suggesting that the quotes were taken entirely out of context and that the parties were completely misrepresented, then you’re argument falls flat.

Secondly, you can’t seem to grasp the fact that this issue isn’t about making things “safer”, or complaining that the ACT is too “unsafe” because of the lenience on murderers. I’m not sure where you got this ridiculous notion from (I’m not even convinced you understand the situation to any extent) but you’re clearly missing the point and trying to shape our claims into something that better suits your uninformed and misguided argument.

It’s pretty clear to all of us that you don’t have any clue what you’re talking about.

Not said :

Special G said :

All alleged murders in recent times:

Girl rufies her boyfriend and gives him a hotshot of heroin whilst hosting a dinner party – manslaughter – obviously didn’t mean to kill him.
Supreme Court even had a person convicted for aid and abet murder when no one was convicted of the murder.
Mum stabbed 38 times – manslaughter – just had a bad day cutting up some carrots.
Mum stabbed 57 times – manslaughter (57 times does not indicate intent to kill apparently)
Guy brings a knife – picks a fight then stabs the guy in the head with no prior warning claiming self defence to a fight he escalated. makes sense to anybody
Bloke with a shot gun chased down the street by an unarmed man until he had to shoot him in self defence – sure why not.
Bloke stabbed 8 times by crazy chick with a knife who then doesn’t tell anyone until later. sure – note to self don’t pick up in bars.
Guy chased out of a caravan and choked to death – self defence (because staying in the caravan wouldn’t constitute defence because the other guy was running away,)
Bloke strangles his x-wife and leaves DNA on her neck – could have got there by some other means – sure why not.

None of that seems out of the ordinary to me…

That comment demonstrates perfectly the fact that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. If that seems “ordinary” to you, then you need to look at the way the judicial system works everywhere else in the country (or indeed the world) and take note of the kind of sentences that such crimes would (and should) receive.

I ll take that on board.

Mysteryman Mysteryman 11:32 am 29 Mar 11

Not said :

I know what exactly what it going on. Too many sheltered years of living in an safe, clean and wealthy city has you wrapped up bubble wrap. Aside from the whole opinion of the courts and the way they operate, the number of murders in Canberra wont change. They haven’t in the last 50 years. There would still be rumors and judgments flying around even if it appeared all was well in the courts. Most of us tend to forget that there is nothing you are able to control in the world but for how much you appreciate your own life. Everything else is beyond us. So while it might seem like it serves as deterrent for other would be killers, convicting murders and jailing them for eternity does nothing to make for a safer world. History clearly shows us this. What is the real issue here for you paranoid people? Vengeance is not logical explainable here as I am sure you would not let anyone else do your bidding for you? Soft or not soft on crime would be irrelevant because we would all be vigilantes and making our own minds up. But since we have all chosen to have a representative do that we will stay indoors for now.

And it would be He, standing over there in distance waiving a copy of the Canberra Times at you and not caring.

There are a number of problems with what you’re saying. I don’t have the time to expound on all of them, but I will say this:

Firstly, regardless of your views on publications like the Canberra Times, the quotes contained in the articles are what I was referring to, not the articles themselves. Unless you’re suggesting that the quotes were taken entirely out of context and that the parties were completely misrepresented, then you’re argument falls flat.

Secondly, you can’t seem to grasp the fact that this issue isn’t about making things “safer”, or complaining that the ACT is too “unsafe” because of the lenience on murderers. I’m not sure where you got this ridiculous notion from (I’m not even convinced you understand the situation to any extent) but you’re clearly missing the point and trying to shape our claims into something that better suits your uninformed and misguided argument.

It’s pretty clear to all of us that you don’t have any clue what you’re talking about.

Not said :

Special G said :

All alleged murders in recent times:

Girl rufies her boyfriend and gives him a hotshot of heroin whilst hosting a dinner party – manslaughter – obviously didn’t mean to kill him.
Supreme Court even had a person convicted for aid and abet murder when no one was convicted of the murder.
Mum stabbed 38 times – manslaughter – just had a bad day cutting up some carrots.
Mum stabbed 57 times – manslaughter (57 times does not indicate intent to kill apparently)
Guy brings a knife – picks a fight then stabs the guy in the head with no prior warning claiming self defence to a fight he escalated. makes sense to anybody
Bloke with a shot gun chased down the street by an unarmed man until he had to shoot him in self defence – sure why not.
Bloke stabbed 8 times by crazy chick with a knife who then doesn’t tell anyone until later. sure – note to self don’t pick up in bars.
Guy chased out of a caravan and choked to death – self defence (because staying in the caravan wouldn’t constitute defence because the other guy was running away,)
Bloke strangles his x-wife and leaves DNA on her neck – could have got there by some other means – sure why not.

None of that seems out of the ordinary to me…

That comment demonstrates perfectly the fact that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. If that seems “ordinary” to you, then you need to look at the way the judicial system works everywhere else in the country (or indeed the world) and take note of the kind of sentences that such crimes would (and should) receive.

Not Not 7:28 pm 28 Mar 11

Spideydog said :

Tooks said :

buzz819 said :

I think Not is Justice Higgins, only hears what he wants to hear, makes up his own opinions from evidence and is totally useless.

Yep. He wasn’t sleeping during a recent trial, he had his head down to his Iphone reading RiotAct 😉

Ahem, I was just resting my eyes ….

I think we need a chief Justice that is in touch with community expectations, whilst still being fair to ALL parties concerned. There is beginning to be quite a large list of bizarre decisions that are quite embarrassing to say the least.

My I must say I really am surprised that in 2011 grown adults are still so scared of their own people. If it is such and issue and you care about it that much, then I urge you as citizens to take action. It is your absolute right to. Call me if I can help. xx

Spideydog Spideydog 9:46 am 28 Mar 11

Tooks said :

buzz819 said :

I think Not is Justice Higgins, only hears what he wants to hear, makes up his own opinions from evidence and is totally useless.

Yep. He wasn’t sleeping during a recent trial, he had his head down to his Iphone reading RiotAct 😉

Ahem, I was just resting my eyes ….

I think we need a chief Justice that is in touch with community expectations, whilst still being fair to ALL parties concerned. There is beginning to be quite a large list of bizarre decisions that are quite embarrassing to say the least.

johnboy johnboy 8:46 am 28 Mar 11

wrong as wrong can be Cleo.

Tooks Tooks 7:07 am 28 Mar 11

buzz819 said :

I think Not is Justice Higgins, only hears what he wants to hear, makes up his own opinions from evidence and is totally useless.

Yep. He wasn’t sleeping during a recent trial, he had his head down to his Iphone reading RiotAct 😉

Special G Special G 5:57 am 28 Mar 11

buzz819 said :

I think Not is Justice Higgins, only hears what he wants to hear, makes up his own opinions from evidence and is totally useless.

might be onto something here.

cleo cleo 1:38 am 28 Mar 11

Oh bull-dust, you have always had moderation on this site!

buzz819 buzz819 10:23 pm 27 Mar 11

I think Not is Justice Higgins, only hears what he wants to hear, makes up his own opinions from evidence and is totally useless.

Not Not 9:36 pm 27 Mar 11

Special G said :

The ACT Supreme Court, specifically inJustice Higgins has been critisised in its handling of cases and evidence, sleeping on the bench, throwing out evidence because he doesn’t understand it ro found it too predjudicial to the defence case (mainly because it said they did it). Discounting witness testimonies etc.

Critisism has not only come from the public but visisting interstate judges on appeals as well.

All alleged murders in recent times:

Girl rufies her boyfriend and gives him a hotshot of heroin whilst hosting a dinner party – manslaughter – obviously didn’t mean to kill him.
Supreme Court even had a person convicted for aid and abet murder when no one was convicted of the murder.
Mum stabbed 38 times – manslaughter – just had a bad day cutting up some carrots.
Mum stabbed 57 times – manslaughter (57 times does not indicate intent to kill apparently)
Guy brings a knife – picks a fight then stabs the guy in the head with no prior warning claiming self defence to a fight he escalated. makes sense to anybody
Bloke with a shot gun chased down the street by an unarmed man until he had to shoot him in self defence – sure why not.
Bloke stabbed 8 times by crazy chick with a knife who then doesn’t tell anyone until later. sure – note to self don’t pick up in bars.
Guy chased out of a caravan and choked to death – self defence (because staying in the caravan wouldn’t constitute defence because the other guy was running away,)
Bloke strangles his x-wife and leaves DNA on her neck – could have got there by some other means – sure why not.

Why would anyone think that nothing is wrong with the system?

None of that seems out of the ordinary to me. Judges are always critical of one another. They have to be. It isn’t personal, doctors do it too. Its called professional opinion, each have earned the right to it. A handful of cases resulted in different convictions. And? There is a handful of cases still unsolved to so maybe should wait until they are brought in? It might balance out then we can all relax and go to Gus’s for a hot chocolate.

Special G Special G 8:30 pm 27 Mar 11

The ACT Supreme Court, specifically inJustice Higgins has been critisised in its handling of cases and evidence, sleeping on the bench, throwing out evidence because he doesn’t understand it ro found it too predjudicial to the defence case (mainly because it said they did it). Discounting witness testimonies etc.

Critisism has not only come from the public but visisting interstate judges on appeals as well.

All alleged murders in recent times:

Girl rufies her boyfriend and gives him a hotshot of heroin whilst hosting a dinner party – manslaughter – obviously didn’t mean to kill him.
Supreme Court even had a person convicted for aid and abet murder when no one was convicted of the murder.
Mum stabbed 38 times – manslaughter – just had a bad day cutting up some carrots.
Mum stabbed 57 times – manslaughter (57 times does not indicate intent to kill apparently)
Guy brings a knife – picks a fight then stabs the guy in the head with no prior warning claiming self defence to a fight he escalated. makes sense to anybody
Bloke with a shot gun chased down the street by an unarmed man until he had to shoot him in self defence – sure why not.
Bloke stabbed 8 times by crazy chick with a knife who then doesn’t tell anyone until later. sure – note to self don’t pick up in bars.
Guy chased out of a caravan and choked to death – self defence (because staying in the caravan wouldn’t constitute defence because the other guy was running away,)
Bloke strangles his x-wife and leaves DNA on her neck – could have got there by some other means – sure why not.

Why would anyone think that nothing is wrong with the system?

Not Not 6:36 pm 27 Mar 11

Mysteryman said :

vg said :

Not said :

vg said :

I assume the Not is fully expressed as Not From Around Here, as your judicial analogies are appallingly inaccurate.

“Struan was a really good bloke”

-1

I know Canberra very well though I do not live there. In any case it doesn’t mean that I am not aware of what court proceedings information is on record and accessible. I happen to be a keen Canberra admirer and regularly observe the goings on there. I have family there also. I am more from Canberra than I am anywhere else.

I bet I know the Canberra judicial system, and its considerable inconsistencies (curiously many caused by a drinking buddy of the local Labor executive) much better than you. You’re out of your depth discussing it

+1

It’s evident from Not’s posts that he/she has no idea what’s going on here. Either that, or he/she does know what’s going on but chooses to ignore it. I hope it’s the first one.

I know what exactly what it going on. Too many sheltered years of living in an safe, clean and wealthy city has you wrapped up bubble wrap. Aside from the whole opinion of the courts and the way they operate, the number of murders in Canberra wont change. They haven’t in the last 50 years. There would still be rumors and judgments flying around even if it appeared all was well in the courts. Most of us tend to forget that there is nothing you are able to control in the world but for how much you appreciate your own life. Everything else is beyond us. So while it might seem like it serves as deterrent for other would be killers, convicting murders and jailing them for eternity does nothing to make for a safer world. History clearly shows us this. What is the real issue here for you paranoid people? Vengeance is not logical explainable here as I am sure you would not let anyone else do your bidding for you? Soft or not soft on crime would be irrelevant because we would all be vigilantes and making our own minds up. But since we have all chosen to have a representative do that we will stay indoors for now.

And it would be He, standing over there in distance waiving a copy of the Canberra Times at you and not caring.

Mysteryman Mysteryman 4:51 pm 27 Mar 11

vg said :

Not said :

vg said :

I assume the Not is fully expressed as Not From Around Here, as your judicial analogies are appallingly inaccurate.

“Struan was a really good bloke”

-1

I know Canberra very well though I do not live there. In any case it doesn’t mean that I am not aware of what court proceedings information is on record and accessible. I happen to be a keen Canberra admirer and regularly observe the goings on there. I have family there also. I am more from Canberra than I am anywhere else.

I bet I know the Canberra judicial system, and its considerable inconsistencies (curiously many caused by a drinking buddy of the local Labor executive) much better than you. You’re out of your depth discussing it

+1

It’s evident from Not’s posts that he/she has no idea what’s going on here. Either that, or he/she does know what’s going on but chooses to ignore it. I hope it’s the first one.

Not Not 9:11 pm 26 Mar 11

vg said :

Yes, it says that I have a better understanding of it than you….so I guess that is about me.

When was the last time you were IN an ACT Courtroom?

Actually I think it just says you have a drinking partner from the labor executive. I try and avoid court rooms as I find them defiling. Plus I hate legal terminology.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site