Accused tried to frame innocent man with teen's murder
A man accused of murdering an Indigenous teenager after his car windows were smashed has admitted attempting to frame an innocent man for the killing.
Cassius Turvey, a 15-year-old Noongar Yamatji boy, died in hospital 10 days after prosecutors say he was chased, knocked to the ground and "deliberately struck to the head with a metal pole" in Perth's eastern suburbs on October 13, 2022.
Aleesha Louise Gilmore, 23, her boyfriend Jack Steven James Brearley, 24, and his mates Brodie Lee Palmer, 29 and Mitchell Colin Forth, 26, are on trial in the West Australian Supreme Court for Cassius' murder.
Under cross-examination by prosecutor Ben Stanwix, Brearley agreed on Thursday he told police he spotted a neighbour near the alleged murder scene with a weapon that could have been a piece of pipe or a machete.
Brearley knew that Cassius was dead when police interviewed him and that he was implicating an innocent man in the murder of a child, the jury heard.
Mr Stanwix: So you tried to frame an innocent man for the murder of a child?
Brearley: Yeah.
Mr Stanwix: Isn't the case you will tell any lie imaginable if it gives you a prospect of getting away with what you did?
Brearley: No.
Brearley said he did it to protect himself, Palmer and Gilmore before agreeing he previously said Palmer threatened to kill him if he was implicated in the alleged incident.
Mr Stanwix asked Brearley if he agreed it was despicable and reprehensible to frame an innocent man.
"I don't even know what those words mean," Brearley said.
Mr Stanwix explained they meant it was a disgusting thing to do.
Brearley said he didn't agree.
Mr Stanwix also accused Brearley of choosing the man because he was of a similar height and build, and had been in the area on the day Cassius was allegedly attacked.
Brearley agreed he looked similar but denied that it was why he named the man.
Mr Stanwix: You knew you had to give someone to police that may be mistaken for you and that's why you named (the man)?
Brearley: No.
Mr Stanwix: It had nothing to do with Brodie threatening you?
Brearley: It did.
Brearley also agreed that he and Palmer re-enacted the attack on Cassius a day after the alleged incident, which was recorded on CCTV at Palmer's home.
But he has denied he was the one who swung the fatal blows, saying it was Palmer and that he only punched Cassius after the teen slashed him with a knife.
During the at-times terse cross-examination, Brearley also agreed he, Palmer and Forth gathered weapons before Cassius was injured and that they went looking for a group of youths he said had threatened to "run through" the home he shared with Gilmore.
But he denied the trio discussed violence before going out.
The trial continues.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Brazil court majority favors tougher social media rules
Brazil's Supreme Court reached a majority Wednesday in favor of toughening social media regulation, in a groundbreaking case for Latin America on the spread of fake news and hate speech. The South American country's highest court is seeking to determine to what extent companies like X, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook are responsible for removing illegal content, and how they can be sanctioned if they do not. The judges' final ruling will create a precedent that will affect tens of millions of social media users in Brazil. At issue is a clause in the country's so-called Civil Framework for the Internet -- a law in effect since 2014 that says platforms are only responsible for harm caused by a post if they ignore a judge's order to remove it. By Wednesday, six of the court's 11 judges had ruled in favor of higher accountability, meaning sites should monitor content and remove problematic posts on their own initiative, without judicial intervention. One judge has voted against tougher regulation, and four have yet to express an opinion. "We must, as a court, move in the direction of freedom with responsibility and regulated freedom, which is the only true freedom," Judge Flavio Dino said during Wednesday's session, broadcast online. Not doing so would be like "trying to open an airline without regulation in the name of the right of free movement," he added. Google, for its part, said in a statement that changing the rules "will not contribute to ending the circulation of unwanted content on the internet." - Coup plot - Alexandre de Moraes, one of the court's judges, has repeatedly clashed with X owner Elon Musk and various right-wing personalities over social media posts. The review is taking place in parallel with the Supreme Court trial of far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is alleged to have collaborated on a coup plot to remain in power after his 2022 election defeat. Prosecutors say Bolsonaro's followers used social media to lie about the reliability of the electoral system and plot the downfall of successor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Last year, Moraes blocked X for 40 days for failing to comply with a series of court orders against online disinformation. He had previously ordered X to suspend the accounts of several Bolsonaro supporters. Musk and other critics say Moraes is stifling free speech, and US President Donald Trump's administration is weighing sanctions against the judge, whom Bolsonaro accuses of judicial "persecution." Lula, who emerged the victor in the tightly-fought 2022 election against Bolsonaro, is advocating for "accelerating regulation" of online platforms. ffb/ll/dga/mlr/des/nl
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes
A Wisconsin watchdog group has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk claiming that he unlawfully bribed voters with million-dollar checks and $100 giveaways in the state's latest Supreme Court election. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that investigates election transparency — along with two Wisconsin voters, filed the suit against Musk, his super PAC America PAC and another Musk-owned entity called the United States of America Inc. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that Musk and his entities violated state laws that prohibit vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries. It also accuses Musk of conducting civil conspiracy and acting as a public nuisance. Musk and America PAC did not respond to a request for comment. 'In the context of an election for Wisconsin's highest court, election bribery—providing more than $1 to induce electors (that is, voters) to vote— undermines voters' faith in the validity of the electoral system and the independence of the judiciary,' the suit reads. The complaint alleges that Musk violated state laws in giving away $100 to voters who signed a petition 'in opposition to activist judges' and handing out million-dollar checks to those who signed the petition. The suit says that those who had won the checks had voted for candidate Brad Schimel. At a town hall in Green Bay, Musk gave away million-dollar checks to two people, both of whom the suit claims voted for Schimel. In a video America PAC posted on X, one of the winners said he had voted for Schimel and encouraged others to do the same. 'Everyone needs to do what I just did, sign the petition, refer your friends, and go out to vote for Brad Schimel,' the winner, Nicholas Jacobs, said in the video. The suit mentions that Musk had said the $1 million awards would be given 'in appreciation' for those 'taking the time to vote.' Despite Musk's America PAC spending over $12 million on Schimel's campaign, candidate Susan Crawford won the race. Before the race had been called, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a similar lawsuit against Musk over his involvement in the state Supreme Court election, but a county judge declined to immediately hold a hearing. A Pennsylvania judge similarly declined a request to block Musk's million-dollar giveaways in the state. During the presidential election, Musk's America PAC had also given out million-dollar checks to people registered to vote in swing states, which the Justice Department had warned could be illegal. Musk defended his giveaways during the presidential election despite the allegations of unlawfulness by saying that those who signed the petition weren't given the money as a prize and that chance 'was not involved here.' Those who signed the petition were instead America PAC spokespeople with the 'opportunity to earn' $1 million. 'Make no mistake: an eligible voter's opportunity to earn is not the same thing as a chance to win,' Musk said, according to Reuters. Jeff Mandell, the co-founder of Law Forward — the law firm that filed the suit on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — said in an interview with NBC News that this lawsuit has the advantage of additional time. 'The election is over. Some passions have cooled, and we are bringing this in a normal posture, asking the court to go through its normal procedure,' Mandell said. 'We are confident that we'll get a complete and fair adjudication.' The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's lawsuit also seeks to bar Musk from 'replicating any such unlawful conduct in relation to future Wisconsin elections.' 'Almost everyone who was watching closely or saw what was happening here in Wisconsin in that very tight period was pretty horrified, and would say things like, 'Well, this can't possibly be legal,' or, 'He can't possibly get away with this,'' Mandell said. 'That's really the purpose of this lawsuit, is to make sure that a court does say — in accord with both the law and I think people across the political spectrum's intuition — that this is not legal conduct, this is not consistent with how our democracy works, and to make sure it doesn't happen again.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Majority on Brazil court in favor of tougher social media rules
Brazil's Supreme Court reached a majority Wednesday in favor of toughening social media regulation, in a groundbreaking case for Latin America on the spread of fake news and hate speech. The South American country's highest court is seeking to determine to what extent companies such as X, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook are responsible for removing illegal content, and how they can be sanctioned if they do not. The judges' final ruling will create a precedent that will affect tens of millions of social media users in Brazil. At issue is a clause in the country's so-called Civil Framework for the Internet, a law in effect since 2014, that says platforms are only responsible for harm caused by a post if they ignore a judge's order to remove it. By Wednesday, six of the court's 11 judges had ruled in favor of higher accountability, meaning sites should monitor content and remove problematic posts on their own initiative, without court intervention. One judge has voted against tougher regulation, and three have yet to express an opinion. Alexandre de Moraes, one of 11 judges of the court, has repeatedly clashed with X owner Elon Musk and various right-wing personalities over social media posts. The review is taking place in parallel with the Supreme Court trial of far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is alleged to have collaborated on a coup plot to remain in power after his 2022 election defeat. Prosecutors say Bolsonaro's followers used social media to lie about the reliability of the electoral system and plot the downfall of successor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Last year, Moraes blocked X for 40 days for failing to comply with a series of court orders against online disinformation. He had previously ordered X to suspend the accounts of several Bolsonaro supporters. Musk and other critics say Moraes is stifling free speech, and US President Donald Trump's administration is weighing sanctions against the judge, whom Bolsonaro accuses of judicial "persecution." Lula, who emerged the victor in a tightly-fought election against Bolsonaro in 2022, is advocating for "accelerating regulation" of online platforms. ffb/ll/dga/mlr/des
