Accused tried to frame innocent man with teen's murder
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
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump's civil fraud penalty scrapped: 5 takeaways
A half-billion-dollar judgment against President Trump and his business empire was thrown out by a divided appeals court Thursday, though the fraud case against him was left intact. It's a stunning turn in the battle between the president and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), who accused the real estate mogul of inflating his net worth for tax and insurance benefits in a 2022 lawsuit that threatened his billionaire status and company. Here are five takeaways from the pivotal decision. 'Excessive' fine gone; other penalties remain Though the judges were deeply split otherwise, they agreed that the financial penalty imposed on the Trump Organization by the trial court was unlawfully excessive. Judge Arthur Engoron had ordered the defendants — Trump, his eldest sons and top executives — to pay $464 million, plus interest, the bulk of which Trump bears. The total had climbed to more than $527 million, including interest, as of Thursday. The wiped-away financial penalty is an undeniable victory for Trump. But the ruling is not a complete success for his business. On top of the fine, Engoron barred Trump from serving in top roles at any New York company for three years and his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, for two years. He also installed an independent monitor at the Trump Organization to keep watch over its business practices, which was allowed to go into effect as the appeal moved forward. The appeals panel gave those penalties the stamp of approval. 'Considering the significant likelihood that defendants would reoffend, Supreme Court's injunctions were measured and fair,' said Judges Peter Moulten and Dianne Renwick, who wrote the principal opinion. That also goes for former top executives Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney, who were barred for life from serving 'in the financial control function' of any New York company and from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity for three years. Trump and his businesses are prohibited from applying for loans from institutions registered with the state for three years, as well. Both Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are listed as executive vice presidents of the Trump Organization, raising questions about the leadership of the company should the ruling stand. Both sides claim victory Soon after the decision came down, both Trump and James were quick to call it a triumph. In a winding Truth Social post, Trump said the ruling was a 'TOTAL VICTORY' over the New York attorney general, calling her lawsuit a 'Case of Election Interference.' 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' Trump said. He posted an image of himself in court, dubbed over with DJ Khaled's 'All I Do Is Win.' Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, similarly celebrated the ruling as a 'massive win' and 'total victory.' James, meanwhile, noted that the panel affirmed the trial court's finding that Trump and his company are liable for fraud and upheld the injunctive relief her office won against them. 'It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,' she said. Court deeply fractured The panel mostly kept the lower judgment intact despite three of the five appeals judges — a majority — believing it should not stand. 'To draw a sports analogy, it is as if a team is awarded a touchdown without crossing the goal line,' Judge David Friedman wrote. Why? The result of the panel's deep fractures and an unusual arrangement. None of the court's three opinions garnered majority support. The court effectively split 2-2-1. Two judges were prepared to rule for James on everything except the fine, another pair wanted to order a new trial and the final judge completely sided with Trump by tossing the entire dispute outright. Fearful the parties would have to reargue the case, the second pair reached a consensus so the parties can immediately move the case to New York's highest court. The two judges maintained their protest in a 94-page opinion. But they meanwhile joined the first pair to form a majority in signing the court's 'decretal,' meaning its bottom-line order that affirmed the trial court's underlying findings. Judge John Higgitt and Judge Llinét Rosado wrote their decision came 'with great reluctance and with acknowledgement of the incongruity of the act.' 'A remarkable situation has necessitated a remarkable solution,' their opinion reads. The arrangement only came after an unusually long delay. The case had been pending almost a year, far longer than the normal timeline. Judge David Friedman, the dissenting judge who didn't sign on, commended his colleagues' 'selflessness' in putting aside their personal views. But he noted the oddity of the agreement and questioned why they didn't join forces with him to completely overturn the trial court. 'In any event, it seems to me that the result I would reach is more consistent with the outlook of Justices Higgitt and Rosado than the affirmance of the judgment, as modified, for which they are voting,' Friedman wrote. Politics bled into decision Perhaps inevitably, politics played a role in the final outcome. The second pair of judges, Higgitt and Rosado, said they would have sent the case back for another trial with a more limited scope, asserting that some claims were barred by the statute of limitations. However, the first pair of judges, Moulten and Renwick, and the final judge, Friedman, expressed doubt. 'It is difficult to imagine that a trial could proceed while one of the principal defendants, and a central witness, is President of the United States,' Moulten and Renwick wrote, adding that the 'inevitable elapse of time' and 'Sisyphean' need to recreate the vast record of testimony and documents would likely kill the case. Meanwhile, Friedman said a new trial would 'disrupt the political life of the United States and would undermine its national interest,' especially as global tensions remain high amid the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza conflicts. Friedman, who would have tossed the dispute altogether, also staked his position in part on James's own political speech. He said the record makes clear she sought to use the law and judicial system 'for political ends.' 'The proof of this is found not in anything written by me but in the words of the Attorney General herself,' Friedman wrote. 'Specifically, as previously noted, the Attorney General, in her 2018 election campaign for her current office, repeatedly promised the voters that her top priority, upon being sworn in, would be to bring down President Trump and his real estate empire.' What happens next With the appeals court ruling in, the next step is the state's top bench, the New York Court of Appeals. James's office quickly vowed to do so in hopes that she can restore the nine-figure fine against Trump. 'We will seek appeal to the Court of Appeals and continue to protect the rights and interests of New Yorkers,' James's office said in its statement. Trump and his sons could also appeal and seek to overturn what's left of the trial court judgment, including the limits on their ability to serve in top roles for New York companies in near term. It remains unclear if they will do so. Trump called Thursday's decision a 'total victory' and pointed to his other personal legal battles where he has yet to emerge victorious. The Trump Organization and two of its former executives, Weisselberg and McConney, are also defendants and could appeal.
San Francisco Chronicle
5 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Lawyers for Brazil's Bolsonaro surprised by new accusation of obstruction of justice
BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — Lawyers for former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro expressed surprise Thursday by the federal police's decision to formally accuse him of obstruction of justice less than two weeks ahead of the verdict and sentencing phase of his trial over an alleged coup plot. Bolsonaro would face another trial if the attorney-general decides to charge him based on the new accusations. The federal police investigation unveiled on Wednesday showed Bolsonaro considered seeking political asylum in Argentina last year and that he continued to communicate with allies in recent weeks despite precautionary measures that now force him to be under house arrest. Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the case, told Bolsonaro's lawyers late on Wednesday that they had 48 hours to explain why the former president was not complying with measures established for his house arrest order. Bolsonaro's lawyers denied any wrongdoing. 'There was never noncompliance with any precautionary measure previously imposed,' the lawyers said in a statement, in which they added they will clarify Bolsonaro's recent actions to de Moraes in a timely fashion. Also on Thursday, one of Bolsonaro's lawyers said in a TV interview that the former president never seriously considered seeking political asylum in Argentina. Paulo Cunha Bueno told TV GloboNews that Bolsonaro received 'every kind of suggestion' as the investigations on him went forward. 'Someone sent him that asylum request in February of 2024. He could have gone, but he did not. He didn't want it and he was neither in house arrest nor in ankle monitoring. He had every condition to flee and he did not,' Cunha said. Bolsonaro claimed in a 33-page document to Milei he was being politically persecuted in Brazil, documents obtained by federal police show. Both are staunch supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has recently repeated some of the former president's claims in his decision to impose 50% tariffs on Brazilian exports. 'I, Jair Messias Bolsonaro, request political asylum from Your Excellency in the Republic of Argentina, under an urgent regime, as I find myself in a situation of political persecution in Brazil and fear for my life,' the former Brazilian leader wrote. Bolsonaro had his passport seized by Brazil's Supreme Court in on Feb. 8, 2024. He has repeatedly sought to get it back, including prior to Trump's inauguration earlier this year. De Moraes rejected all requests as the former president is seen as a flight risk. Manuel Adorni, spokesperson for Milei, said the Argentine government hasn't received anything yet. Bolsonaro did not comment about the investigation. A verdict and sentence in the coup trial will come from a Supreme Court panel of five justices. They are scheduled to announce their rulings between Sept. 2 and 12. The new findings will not be part of that decision. ___
5 hours ago
Lawyers for Brazil's Bolsonaro surprised by new accusation of obstruction of justice
BRASILIA, Brazil -- Lawyers for former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro expressed surprise Thursday by the federal police's decision to formally accuse him of obstruction of justice just days ahead of the sentencing phase of his trial over an alleged coup plot. Bolsonaro would face another trial if the attorney-general decides to charge him based on the new accusations. The federal police investigation unveiled on Wednesday showed Bolsonaro considered seeking political asylum in Argentina last year and that he continued to communicate with allies in recent weeks despite precautionary measures that now force him to be under house arrest. Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the case, told Bolsonaro's lawyers late on Wednesday that they had 48 hours to explain why the former president was not complying with measures established for his house arrest order. Bolsonaro's lawyers denied any wrongdoing. 'There was never noncompliance with any precautionary measure previously imposed,' the lawyers said in a statement, in which they added they will clarify Bolsonaro's recent actions to de Moraes in a timely fashion. Also on Thursday, one of Bolsonaro's lawyers said in a TV interview that the former president never seriously considered seeking political asylum in Argentina. Paulo Cunha Bueno told TV GloboNews that Bolsonaro received 'every kind of suggestion' as the investigations on him went forward. 'Someone sent him that asylum request in February of 2024. He could have gone, but he did not. He didn't want it and he was neither in house arrest nor in ankle monitoring. He had every condition to flee and he did not,' Cunha said. Bolsonaro claimed in a 33-page document to Milei he was being politically persecuted in Brazil, documents obtained by federal police show. Both are staunch supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has recently repeated some of the former president's claims in his decision to impose 50% tariffs on Brazilian exports. 'I, Jair Messias Bolsonaro, request political asylum from Your Excellency in the Republic of Argentina, under an urgent regime, as I find myself in a situation of political persecution in Brazil and fear for my life,' the former Brazilian leader wrote. Bolsonaro had his passport seized by Brazil's Supreme Court in on Feb. 8, 2024. He has repeatedly sought to get it back, including prior to Trump's inauguration earlier this year. De Moraes rejected all requests as the former president is seen as a flight risk. Manuel Adorni, spokesperson for Milei, said the Argentine government hasn't received anything yet. Bolsonaro did not comment about the investigation. A verdict and sentence in the coup trial will come from a Supreme Court panel of five justices. They are scheduled to announce their rulings between Sept. 2 and 12. The new findings will not be part of that decision. Prosecutors say Bolsonaro and several of his allies headed a criminal organization that plotted to overturn the election, including plans to kill Lula and de Moraes.
