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
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Proud Boys' lawsuit is legally unsound — but DOJ will likely just surrender
The $100 million lawsuit filed by leaders of the far-right militant group the Proud Boys is legally unsound — but it has an excellent chance of success. The plaintiffs — Henry 'Enrique' Tarrio and four others — had been found guilty of seditious conspiracy and other crimes arising from their roles in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that interfered with the transition of power following Joe Biden's victory over Donald Trump in the 2020 election. The lawsuit's excellent chance of a successful outcome for Tarrio and his co-defendants-turned-co-plaintiffs rests entirely on the current Justice Department's will to defend itself, which seems non-existent judging by DOJ's recent capitulation in the wrongful death case brought by the estate of Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter shot and killed while trying to breach the House Speaker's Lobby on Jan. 6. The Babbitt case appeared weak. An investigation by the U.S. Capitol Police found that the officer had acted lawfully in shooting Babbitt, and a joint investigation by the D.C. police department and DOJ found no evidence that the officer had done anything other than act in self-defense of himself and members of Congress — who were actively being evacuated in the face of the Capitol attack at the time Babbitt climbed over a barricade and through a broken glass window to get into the Speaker's Lobby. The U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C. and the DOJ's Civil Rights Section jointly decided no criminal charges against the officer were warranted. Nevertheless, the Trump DOJ paid Babbitt's estate $5 million to settle. The Proud Boys case looks even weaker. Tarrio and the other plaintiffs are essentially re-arguing defenses they made at their trials: Their constitutional rights were violated under various theories, including due process, the right to a speedy trial and claims of unreasonable search and seizures. But one problem for them is these defenses were all rejected at trial and they were convicted and sentenced for their crimes. Bringing a civil suit for a wrongful prosecution in which the defendant(s) were convicted would be nearly impossible without that conviction being overturned on appeal. The other problem is that their case is brought primarily upon the so-called Bivens doctrine, which has fallen extremely out of favor with the courts. The doctrine arose from a 1971 Supreme Court case allowing plaintiff Webster Bivens to seek damages against federal agents for violating his Fourth Amendment rights in an illegal search and arrest. But since 1971, the Supreme Court has repeatedly denied Bivens as a remedy and federal trial courts — and appeals courts — have dismissed hundreds of lawsuits based on Bivens, which had led to the conclusion that the Bivens remedy is nearly dead. Professor Dennis Fan, a former DOJ civil attorney, told The Hill that it's 'essentially impossible' to bring a Bivens claim these days. The other basis for the Proud Boys' suit relies on the Federal Torts Claim Act to recover under a liability theory of malicious prosecution — a liability that Rupa Bhattacharyya, former director of DOJ's Torts Branch, describes as 'really, really low.' But likely outweighing all the legal hurdles for the Proud Boys' lawsuit are Trump's pardons of Tarrio and commutations of sentences for his co-plaintiffs. The pardons — not just of the Proud Boys but also of 1,600 defendants charged in the Jan. 6 attack — immeasurably complicate DOJ's potential defense against the lawsuit. The pardon and commutation language used by Trump states that it is ending 'a grave national injustice' — and during the signing ceremony, Trump described the Jan. 6 defendants as 'hostages' and said: 'What they've done to these people is outrageous. There's rarely been anything like it in the history of our country.' Tarrio also has written of his conversation with Trump at Mar-a-Lago where Trump told him that he was sorry for what President Joe Biden had done to Jan. 6 defendants and told him, 'I love you guys.' Both the language in the pardon and commutations and Trump's characterizations and apologies make a settlement nearly the only outcome. Indeed, a trial of the claims could result in the absurdity of Trump and other Trump administration officials testifying against DOJ's defense of its actions — in essence the administration testifying against itself. Nor would a judge be inclined to reject such a settlement. While theoretically a judge may refuse to accept a settlement, those instances typically involve cases that give a judge more authority over settlements. for example class actions like the Purdue Pharma opioid settlement case, in which the judge objected to a provision that would have protected the Sackler family from litigation. A settlement would have big financial consequences for taxpayers. The damage caused by the Jan. 6 attack is estimated by Congress' audit arm to be $2.7 billion, of which only $3 million was to be repaid in the form of restitution by Jan. 6 defendants. Whatever restitution was owed is wiped clean by the pardons and commutations, and the DOJ has already supported giving a refund to the defendants of any money already paid. It would also likely cause a flood of similar lawsuits from perhaps all of the 1,600 pardoned/commuted Jan. 6 defendants — which could add millions, maybe even hundreds of millions, to the tab. Such an income stream fits well with Trump's idea of creating a 'compensation fund' for pardoned Jan 6 rioters even as it would — in the words of history professor Allan J. Lichtman — send a 'horrendous message' that would legitimize 'violent insurrections.' Lichtman compared the settlements process to 'white supremacists during the Jim Crow era recasting Confederates who fought in the Civil War as 'noble.'' Essentially, the Trump administration could be creating reparations packages for Jan. 6 rioters. This article was originally published on
Hamilton Spectator
6 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Decision coming over officer's use of anti-riot gun in B.C. woman's death
VICTORIA - An adjudicator appointed by B.C.'s police watchdog is expected to release his decision on the discipline for an officer who fired an anti-riot weapon, killing a woman. Former B.C. Supreme Court judge Wally Oppal ruled last month that Victoria police Sgt. Ron Kirkwood's use of a so-called ARWEN gun on Lisa Rauch was 'reckless and unnecessary.' Oppal was appointed by the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner to review the evidence against the officer and determined Kirkwood committed misconduct when he used the weapon on the woman, who was in a drug-induced psychosis. The commission says Oppal, a former B.C. attorney general, is also expected to issue his decision on possible corrective measures and recommendations for change in relation to his findings. Oppal's ruling said the 43-year-old woman was at a friend's Victoria apartment using drugs and alcohol when she went into the psychosis on Christmas Day 2019. It says when police entered the apartment, their view was obscured by smoke from a fire and they believed Rauch was standing, but she was actually sitting and was hit in the head by two plastic projectiles. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 12, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
7 hours ago
With Trump as ally, El Salvador's President ramps up crackdown on dissent
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador -- Days before his arrest outside his daughter's house in the outskirts of San Salvador, constitutional lawyer Enrique Anaya called Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele a 'dictator' and a 'despot' on live TV. This week, lawyer Jaime Quintanilla stood outside a detention facility in El Salvador's capital with a box of food and clothes for his client, unsure if Anaya would ever be released. The Saturday arrest of Anaya, a fierce critic of Bukele, marks the latest move in what watchdogs describe as a wave of crackdown on dissent by the Central American leader. They say Bukele is emboldened by his alliance with U.S. President Donald Trump, who has not only praised him but avoided criticizing actions human rights defenders, international authorities and legal experts deem authoritarian. Authorities in El Salvador have targeted outspoken lawyers like Anaya, journalists investigating Bukele's alleged deals with gangs and human rights defenders calling for the end of a three-year state of emergency, which has suspended fundamental civil rights. Some say they have been forced to flee the country. 'They're trying to silence anyone who voices an opinion — professionals, ideologues, anyone who is critical — now they're jailed.' Quintanilla said. 'It's a vendetta.' Bukele's office did not respond to a request for comment. Observers see a worrisome escalation by the popular president, who enjoys extremely high approval ratings due to his crackdown on the country's gangs. By suspending fundamental rights, Bukele has severely weakened gangs but also locked up 87,000 people for alleged gang ties, often with little evidence or due process. A number of those detained were also critics. Bukele and his New Ideas party have taken control of all three branches of government, stacking the country's Supreme Court with loyalists. Last year, in a move considered unconstitutional, he ran for reelection, securing a resounding victory. 'I don't care if you call me a dictator," Bukele said earlier this month in a speech. "Better that than seeing Salvadorans killed on the streets.' In recent weeks, those who have long acted as a thorn in Bukele's side say looming threats have reached an inflection point. The crackdown comes as Bukele has garnered global attention for keeping some 200 Venezuelan deportees detained in a mega-prison built for gangs as part of an agreement with the Trump administration. Anaya was detained by authorities on unproven accusations of money laundering. Prosecutors said he would be sent to 'relevant courts" in the coming days. Quintanilla, his lawyer, rejects the allegations, saying his arrest stems from years of vocally questioning Bukele. Quintanilla, a longtime colleague of Anaya, said he decided to represent his friend in part because many other lawyers in the country were now too afraid to show their faces. On Tuesday, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed 'deep concern' over Anaya's arrest. Anaya, 61, is a respected lawyer and commentator in El Salvador with a doctorate in constitutional law. He has criticized Bukele's crackdown on the gangs and Bukele stacking of El Salvador's high court. Last year, he was among those who unsuccessfully petitioned the country's top electoral authority to reject Bukele's re-election bid, saying it violated the constitution. Days before his arrest, Anaya railed on television against the detention of human rights lawyer Ruth López, who last week shouted, 'They're not going to silence me, I want a public trial,' as police escorted her shackled to court. 'Of course I'm scared,' Anaya told the broadcast anchor. 'I think that anyone here who dares to speak out, speaks in fear.' While some of Bukele's most vocal critics, like Anaya and López, have been publicly detained, other human rights defenders have quietly slipped out of the country, hoping to seek asylum elsewhere in the region. They declined to comment or be identified out of fear that they would be targeted even outside El Salvador. Last month, a protest outside of Bukele's house was violently quashed by police and some of the protesters arrested. He also ordered the arrest of the heads of local bus companies for defying his order to offer free transport while a major highway was blocked. In late May, El Salvador's Congress passed a 'foreign agents' law, championed by the populist president. It resembles legislation implemented by governments in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Russia, Belarus and China to silence and criminalize dissent by exerting pressure on organizations that rely on overseas funding. Verónica Reyna, a human rights coordinator for the Salvadoran nonprofit Servicio Social Pasionista, said police cars now regularly wait outside her group's offices as a lingering threat. 'It's been little-by-little,' Reyna said. 'Since Trump came to power, we've seen (Bukele) feel like there's no government that's going to strongly criticize him or try to stop him.' Trump's influence extends beyond his vocal backing of Bukele, with his administration pushing legal boundaries to push his agenda, Reyna, other human rights defenders and journalists said. The U.S. Embassy in El Salvador, which once regularly denounced the government's actions, has remained silent throughout the arrests and lingering threats. It did not respond to a request for comment. In its final year, the Biden administration, too, dialed back its criticism of the Bukele government as El Salvador's government helped slow migration north in the lead up to the 2024 election. On Tuesday, Quintanilla visited Anaya in detention for the first time since his arrest while being watched by police officers. Despite the detention, neither Anaya nor Quintanilla have been officially informed of the charges. Quintanilla worries that authorities will use wide ranging powers granted to Bukele by the 'state of emergency' to keep him imprisoned indefinitely. Óscar Martínez, editor-in-chief of news site El Faro, and four other journalists have left the country and are unable to return safely, as they face the prospect of arrest stemming from their reporting. At a time when many other reporters have fallen silent out of fear, Martínez's news site has investigated Bukele more rigorously than perhaps any other, exposing hidden corruption and human rights abuses under his crackdown on gangs. In May, El Faro published a three-part interview with a former gang leader who claimed he negotiated with Bukele's administration. Soon after, Martínez said the organization received news that authorities were preparing an arrest order for a half-dozen of their journalists. This has kept at least five El Faro journalists, including Martínez, stranded outside their country for over a month. On Saturday, when the reporters tried to return home on a flight, a diplomatic source and a government official informed them that police had been sent to the airport to wait for them and likely arrest them. The journalists later discovered that their names, along with other civil society leaders, appeared on a list of 'priority objectives" held by airport authorities. Martínez said Anaya's name was also on the list. Now in a nearby Central American nation, Martínez said he doesn't know when he will be able to board another flight home. And if he does, he doesn't know what will happen when he steps off. 'We fear that, if we return — because some of us surely will try — we'll be imprisoned,' he said. 'I am positive that if El Faro journalists are thrown in prison, we'll be tortured and, possibly, even killed."
