• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

14 people charged with murder of an 8 year old Queensland girl.

lionking

In the Peanut Gallery
lionking
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
57,827
Location
Melbourne
I’m going to follow this with great interest.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11...er-and-the-14-people-to-stand-trial/101671336

With her long dark hair, pink Tweety Pie cap and Dora the Explorer shirt, eight-year-old Elizabeth Struhs looks like a happy little girl in a family photograph.

But her cheeky smile is hard to reconcile with the harrowing evidence presented in a Queensland regional court over the past two months, as one after another, 14 people were committed to stand trial for her murder.

The young girl was found dead in a Rangeville home in Toowoomba on January 8 this year after her life-saving insulin was allegedly withheld by a group of people who claim to love her and trusted God to heal her.
Click to expand...

Interestingly they haven’t named the cult, but it’s certain to come out.

These evil bastards will hopefully serve long sentences. Also interestingly, they have also refused legal representation, trusting in god to protect them.

Well done Queensland police and prosecutors. For those unaware of this state, it is full of rednecks, has had fundamentalist leaders (Joh Bjelke-Peterson) and is home of racist politician Pauline Hanson. The temptation to brush this evil crime under the carpet must have been strong.

Right now I’m shedding real tears for Elizabeth.
 
lionking said:
I’m going to follow this with great interest.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11...er-and-the-14-people-to-stand-trial/101671336



Interestingly they haven’t named the cult, but it’s certain to come out.

These evil bastards will hopefully serve long sentences. Also interestingly, they have also refused legal representation, trusting in god to protect them.

Well done Queensland police and prosecutors. For those unaware of this state, it is full of rednecks, has had fundamentalist leaders (Joh Bjelke-Peterson) and is home of racist politician Pauline Hanson. The temptation to brush this evil crime under the carpet must have been strong.

Right now I’m shedding real tears for Elizabeth.
Click to expand...
In fairness, this looks like a sin of omission.
I understand your view and would certainly avail a child of mine all tech/medical care.
 
lionking said:
No. Comprehensibly no. Denying medical treatment for a child is a crime. I’m sure it is in NZ.

Sin of omission? ******* ********.
Click to expand...
Cults are tricky
Look at Gloriavale in New Zealand.
I can only repeat I would never deny a child of mine medically affordable care.
 
I mean, a sin of omission is still a sin. "In fairness", correctly recognizing that the crime lay in their failure to act changes nothing. It's still the crime of murder.

"In fairness, your honor, I killed the victim."

"And in fairness, that's why we're sentencing you for murder."
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Thankfully, courts try people for crimes rather than sins.
Click to expand...

I get your point, but a sin can refer to any kind of transgression. Crime is just a technical term for sins committed against the state. The real silliness of Samson's remark is that sins of omission aren't any less offensive for being predicated on failure to act. Inaction isn't somehow less bad than action, when there is agency.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
No. Comprehensibly no. Denying medical treatment for a child is a crime. I’m sure it is in NZ.

Sin of omission? ******* ********.
Click to expand...

It is, and Samson knows it. It's not a sin of omission, its a crime of omission. Its under Section 150A of the Crimes act, 1961

Duty of parent or guardian to provide necessaries and protect from injury
Every one who is a parent, or is a person in place of a parent, who has actual care or charge of a child under the age of 18 years is under a legal duty— (a) to provide that child with necessaries; and (b) to take reasonable steps to protect that child from injury.
This was amended in 19*March 2012, in section 6 of the Crimes Amendment Act (No*3) 2011 (2011 No*79)

150A Standard of care applicable to persons under legal duties or performing unlawful acts
(1)This section applies in respect of—
(a)the legal duties specified in any of sections 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, and 157; and
(b)an unlawful act referred to in section 160 where the unlawful act relied on requires proof of negligence or is a strict or absolute liability offence.

(2)For the purposes of this Part, a person is criminally responsible for omitting to discharge or perform a legal duty, or performing an unlawful act, to which this section applies only if, in the circumstances, the omission or unlawful act is a major departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person to whom that legal duty applies or who performs that unlawful act.​


I hope all 14 of these scumbags are found guilty and spend a long, long time behind bars.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't murder imply intent? This reads more like manslaughter, if the people concerned were so ignorant they had no idea she would die.
 
Samson said:
In fairness, this looks like a sin of omission.I understand your view and would certainly avail a child of mine all tech/medical care.
Click to expand...
Bollocks.
The adults knew that the child was at risk of death without her insulin and stopped administering it because of "god". The mother was previously jailed for similar actions.
A solid argument for murder.
 
Vixen said:
Doesn't murder imply intent? This reads more like manslaughter, if the people concerned were so ignorant they had no idea she would die.
Click to expand...

That's how I read it. How do you try someone for being so stupid that they literally rely on supernatural medical care? As ridiculous as it sounds, they may need to stand a competency evaluation. But it would only be murder if the State can show that they are psychopaths that intended for the girl to die.
 
Thermal said:
That's how I read it. How do you try someone for being so stupid that they literally rely on supernatural medical care? As ridiculous as it sounds, they may need to stand a competency evaluation. But it would only be murder if the State can show that they are psychopaths that intended for the girl to die.
Click to expand...

No they don't - they can use the good old legal "reasonable person" test. A reasonable person can be expected to know that removing medical care will result in a child's illness and death.
 
Darat said:
No they don't - they can use the good old legal "reasonable person" test. A reasonable person can be expected to know that removing medical care will result in a child's illness and death.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said a competency hearing might be on the table. Incompetents are not normally considered reasonable, and are not held to that standard, yea?
 
Thermal said:
Which is why I said a competency hearing might be on the table. Incompetents are not normally considered reasonable, and are not held to that standard, yea?
Click to expand...

No it really doesn't apply given the circumstances here. Having a whacky view or indeed being stupid doesn't absolve you from being held accountable for your actions or non-action, there is no indication in any of the reports I've now read that any of the defendants have diminished responsibility due to mental illness. And even that defence would be hard to establish - the legal test would be whether they know right from wrong in a legal sense.

ETA: As an example - if say a proponent of a "flat earth" was being charged for a crime - they killed someone - the fact that they are stupid and hold whacky views does not come into play.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
That's how I read it. How do you try someone for being so stupid that they literally rely on supernatural medical care? As ridiculous as it sounds, they may need to stand a competency evaluation. But it would only be murder if the State can show that they are psychopaths that intended for the girl to die.
Click to expand...
Generally 'murder' requires the commission of an act that a 'reasonable person' could foresee as leading to a death. It does not specifically require an intent to kill.
 
Darat said:
No they don't - they can use the good old legal "reasonable person" test. A reasonable person can be expected to know that removing medical care will result in a child's illness and death.
Click to expand...
Where is the Clapham Omnibus and it's passengers these days?
 
I have had a closer look at this case, and it seems 'the cult' involves three families, as attached.

Personally, I think it would be too unwieldy and difficult for a court to find all fourteen charged guilty of murder. IMV they are better off charging the parents and have the rest as accessories to the crime. (see what happens when multiple people are charged in the Guede-Knox-Sollecito case, when there are multiple defendants: there are multiple viewpoints and one huge complex case with multiple controversies, each pointing the finger at each other).

The father is described in the OP article as thus:

The father

Disturbing details about Elizabeth's final days were revealed in court when her 50-year-old father, Jason Struhs, was committed for trial for her murder.

The court was told her cause of death was diabetic ketoacidosis and that symptoms would have included excessive urination, thirst, abdominal pain, vomiting, weakness, lethargy and altered levels of consciousness, incontinence and coma until respiratory failure and death.

It was alleged that Mr Struhs withdrew his young child's insulin on Monday, January 3 and that she fell ill the following day before dying on Friday, January 7.

The court heard that Mr Struhs had not believed in the healing power of God until August 2021 and that a week prior to his wife's release from prison in December 2021 he had begun "embracing the healing".
Click to expand...
ABC



52525112598_c0d796fe15_c.jpg




The Timeline of Elizabeth's Death:


52524561996_a19d4c24c0_z.jpg


ibid
 
lobosrul5 said:
What are the odds that all 14 of them are mentally incompetent??
Click to expand...

14^¹⁴

Having said that, as they appear to be related to each other, if one is mentally incompetent, they might all have the same hereditary trait to some degree or other.
 
Darat said:
No it really doesn't apply given the circumstances here. Having a whacky view or indeed being stupid doesn't absolve you from being held accountable for your actions or non-action, there is no indication in any of the reports I've now read that any of the defendants have diminished responsibility due to mental illness. And even that defence would be hard to establish - the legal test would be whether they know right from wrong in a legal sense.

ETA: As an example - if say a proponent of a "flat earth" was being charged for a crime - they killed someone - the fact that they are stupid and hold whacky views does not come into play.
Click to expand...

That's the point. Does a whackadoo cult member know it is wrong, in the legal sense, to not trust the Supreme Creator of the Universe for care, over conventional medicine? I think that is a tough needle to thread.

I mean, I'd have no problem at all seeing them rot in a cell till the warden drags their rotting corpses out, but proving that the cult beliefs are insincere ( which the case against them amounts to) is a weird legal proof.
 
Interview with Jayde Struhs

Here is a link which gives a glimpse into this world, mainly from the vantage point of the oldest sibling Jayde. "She said the family originally went to a mainstream church in Toowoomba, west of Brisbane, until the Struhs and another family, the Stevens, broke away...It's alleged there were 20 people from the church group at the house, allegedly singing, praying and chanting from Friday night through until Saturday evening, until Jason finally called police."
 
Thermal said:
That's the point. Does a whackadoo cult member know it is wrong, in the legal sense, to not trust the Supreme Creator of the Universe for care, over conventional medicine? I think that is a tough needle to thread.

I mean, I'd have no problem at all seeing them rot in a cell till the warden drags their rotting corpses out, but proving that the cult beliefs are insincere ( which the case against them amounts to) is a weird legal proof.
Click to expand...
No actually it isn't the point. Their beliefs may be used as a defender but they certainly don't invalidate the charge.
 
catsmate said:
No actually it isn't the point. Their beliefs may be used as a defender but they certainly don't invalidate the charge.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I didn't say it would, or even should, "invalidate" the charge. The murder charge makes it harder to prove, as opposed to manslaughter or criminal negligence resulting in death or whatever the Queensland equivalent is.
 
Thermal said:
That's the point. Does a whackadoo cult member know it is wrong, in the legal sense, to not trust the Supreme Creator of the Universe for care, over conventional medicine? I think that is a tough needle to thread.

I mean, I'd have no problem at all seeing them rot in a cell till the warden drags their rotting corpses out, but proving that the cult beliefs are insincere ( which the case against them amounts to) is a weird legal proof.
Click to expand...

That’s not understanding the reasonable person concept. The test would be “would a reasonable person know withdrawing the insulin would kill the child”? Whether they are the most sincere people to ever walk this earth in regards to their beliefs matters not one iota. The test is not based on their beliefs.
 
Thermal said:
That's how I read it. How do you try someone for being so stupid that they literally rely on supernatural medical care? As ridiculous as it sounds, they may need to stand a competency evaluation. But it would only be murder if the State can show that they are psychopaths that intended for the girl to die.
Click to expand...

Because if I understand Australian Law (which is very similar to New Zealand Law in this regard) correctly, if the prosecutors can show that you knew, or should have known, that your actions could result in the person's death, and those actions did result in the person's death, then you can be charged with murder. The "Mens Rea" in cases like these is defined as "reckless indifference to human life, where the defendant foresaw the probability, as opposed to possibility, of his or her actions resulting in death"

Its quite rare, but there have been cases in both countries where this standard was applied to a drunk driver who who crashed and killed someone, and they were charged with murder.

ETA: I incorrectly referred to NSW Law above. Since the crime happened in Queensland, I should have quoted the law there

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s302.html

[QUEENSLAND] CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 302
murder
302 murder

(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—

(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;

(aa) if death is caused by an act done, or omission made, with reckless indifference to human life;
(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;

(d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c) ;

(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes;

is guilty of "murder" .

(2) Under subsection (1) (a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.
(3) Under subsection (1) (b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.
(4) Under subsection (1) (c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.
(5) An indictment charging an offence against this section with the circumstance of aggravation stated in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 , section 161Q may not be presented without the consent of a Crown Law Officer.​

So pretty much, intent is immaterial to a murder charge in Queensland.
 
Last edited:
It appears that they'd fall under section (1) (aa) but you'd have to prove reckless indifference to human life. If the cult sincerely believed prayer would provide magical healing, then maybe reckless indifference will be hard to show.

One approach might be that even if they say they believe deeply in the power of prayer, they would need to have some reason to be convinced beyond doubt that this particular prayer would definitely be answered. Otherwise they would be gambling with the girl's life, and that probably constitutes reckless indifference.
 
smartcooky said:
Because if I understand Australian Law (which is very similar to New Zealand Law in this regard) correctly, if the prosecutors can show that you knew, or should have known, that your actions could result in the person's death, and those actions did result in the person's death, then you can be charged with murder. The "Mens Rea" in cases like these is defined as "reckless indifference to human life, where the defendant foresaw the probability, as opposed to possibility, of his or her actions resulting in death"

Its quite rare, but there have been cases in both countries where this standard was applied to a drunk driver who who crashed and killed someone, and they were charged with murder.

ETA: I incorrectly referred to NSW Law above. Since the crime happened in Queensland, I should have quoted the law there

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s302.html

[QUEENSLAND] CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 302
murder
302 murder

(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—

(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;

(aa) if death is caused by an act done, or omission made, with reckless indifference to human life;
(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;

(d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c) ;

(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes;

is guilty of "murder" .

(2) Under subsection (1) (a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.
(3) Under subsection (1) (b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.
(4) Under subsection (1) (c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.
(5) An indictment charging an offence against this section with the circumstance of aggravation stated in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 , section 161Q may not be presented without the consent of a Crown Law Officer.​

So pretty much, intent is immaterial to a murder charge in Queensland.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But someone doesn't want to understand this.
 
catsmate said:
Indeed. But someone doesn't want to understand this.
Click to expand...

What most USAians don't get is that Australia (and New Zealand) do not have "degrees" of murder... there is no 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, felony murder, negligent homicide etc. We only have only two different categories of homicide: murder and manslaughter.

Whereas USA the has all these degrees, and the scale of punishments is, in part, determined by their legal definitions, in Australia and New Zealand, anything more serious than manslaughter is charged as murder, and the punishments are determined by the circumstances of each case.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
What most USAians don't get is that Australia (and New Zealand) do not have "degrees" of murder... there is no 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, felony murder, negligent homicide etc. We only have only two different categories of homicide: murder and manslaughter.

Whereas USA the has all these degrees, and the scale of punishments is, in part, determined by their legal definitions, in Australia and New Zealand, anything more serious than manslaughter is charged as murder, and the punishments are determined by the circumstances of each case.
Click to expand...

Correct.

What we have seen in recent years though is Directors of Public Prosecutions downgrading murder charges to manslaughter. The stated reason for this is that it leads to quicker conviction, but I think it’s more about saving money. This is one of the reasons why this prosecution is so interesting. Yes, there have been many murder charges involving multiple accused, but I’m not aware of one involving 14 people.
 
smartcooky said:
What most USAians don't get is that Australia (and New Zealand) do not have "degrees" of murder... there is no 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, felony murder, negligent homicide etc. We only have only two different categories of homicide: murder and manslaughter.
.....
Click to expand...

But even with only two possible charges, there have to be distinctions. I'm assuming a primary one is the degree of premeditation, an intended killing vs., say, a bar fight that ends badly. What else is considered?

In this particular case, does the prosecution contend that these people intended to kill this kid? All 14 of them? I suspect some of them will walk in exchange for testifying against the others, and I suspect that not all of the rest will actually be tried for murder.

ETA: From this notice from the Queensland government, it does appear that intent is the primary distinction.

Murder—also called homicide—is the wilful killing of a person with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. However, it does not include dangerous driving causing death—the unlawful killing of a person as a result of dangerous or negligent driving without intent to kill. This is a different offence and has a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.
.....
Manslaughter
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a person without intent to kill, usually as a result of a careless, reckless, or negligent act.

Manslaughter also includes the intentional killing of a person under extreme provocation or when a person’s state of mind impairs their capacity to understand or to control their actions—this is sometimes called diminished responsibility.
Click to expand...
https://www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and-police/types-of-crime/murder-attempted-murder-and-manslaughter
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Correct.

What we have seen in recent years though is Directors of Public Prosecutions downgrading murder charges to manslaughter. The stated reason for this is that it leads to quicker conviction, but I think it’s more about saving money. This is one of the reasons why this prosecution is so interesting. Yes, there have been many murder charges involving multiple accused, but I’m not aware of one involving 14 people.
Click to expand...

I, for one, have no problem with holding every member of this cult accountable for the murder of one member if it can be shown it was the cult's shared belief system that directly resulted in the member's death... especially if they actively encouraged the parents to continue with this course of action.


The parents withheld life-vital medication from the child, she became ill within a day, became worse as each day passed, and still the parents withheld the medication, until the little girl finally died. Seems open and shut to me as far as those two are concerned.

As for the cult... they all had a hand in it, by omission if nothing else. Although I can see the possibility of a reduction to manslaughter for them, the fact remains that none of them stood up to be the voice of reason.

The fact that they believed magic Sky Daddy would protect the wee girl is utterly irrelevant
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
No. Comprehensibly no. Denying medical treatment for a child is a crime. I’m sure it is in NZ.
Click to expand...

We might need to split this off, because while this is true:

smartcooky said:
It is, and Samson knows it. It's not a sin of omission, its a crime of omission. Its under Section 150A of the Crimes act, 1961
Click to expand...

I give you Liam Williams-Holloway.

I interviewed the Southern District Superintendent of Police at the time to ask why criminal charges weren't made despite the certainty he died because his parents deliberately withheld care, a far worse situation than the Aussie case, because they'd been ordered by the courts to have him treated.

He said the Crown Law Office had declined to prosecute on the basis of the interests of justice not being served by doing so.

He was as astounded as me.

smartcooky said:
Its quite rare, but there have been cases in both countries where this standard was applied to a drunk driver who who crashed and killed someone, and they were charged with murder.
Click to expand...

And there have been cases where a drunk driver has killed someone and been discharged without conviction and had his hand shaken by the judge.

The irony that the perpetrator was involved in criminal threats as recently as last weekend is not lost on me. Top work, that judge.

I believe the 14 on trial in QLD would easily walk in NZ, and the Kahui case proves it.

And even in the unlikely event they were prosecuted and found guilty, they'd serve minimal, if any, jail time, going by the 18 months served by the disgusting piece of **** who changed his name to Soulan Pownceby, and then even managed to represent the country at boxing.

As usual, Australia shows a lot more class than its little brother when it comes to hideous crimes.
 
Surely there is a precedent to this in the Jehovah's Witness' belief in refusing a blood transfusion. In the UK this is overcome by doctors seeking an injunction and making the child a Ward of Court in order to ensure proper life-saving treatment. ISTM that this poor girl's doctors had needed to intervene before when the girl had to spend a month in hospital recovering. I cannot understand why a social or medical worker didn't follow it up as the mother was clearly negligent.

In Finland there is a law that if you see someone in danger and you do nothing to help you can be prosecuted (obviously this counts as a relatively minor crime).

I don't believe these people really believed God would intervene. They knew she was going to die and they let it happen, whilst clapping and singing.
 
Orphia Nay said:
The average sentence for manslaughter in Qld is 8 years. Murder gets a life sentence.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.qld.gov.au/research/reports/sentencing-spotlight/murder

It looks like manslaughter to me, because I don't think murder was intended, but I think they deserve longer than 8 years.
Click to expand...

That won't be the test - because then the law would be testing the sincerity of their beliefs and people would literally be able to get away with murder. The test will be "would a reasonable person be expected to know that their inactions would cause death?" And the answer is clearly yes in this situation.
 
Bob001 said:
But even with only two possible charges, there have to be distinctions. I'm assuming a primary one is the degree of premeditation, an intended killing vs., say, a bar fight that ends badly. What else is considered?

In this particular case, does the prosecution contend that these people intended to kill this kid? All 14 of them? I suspect some of them will walk in exchange for testifying against the others, and I suspect that not all of the rest will actually be tried for murder.

ETA: From this notice from the Queensland government, it does appear that intent is the primary distinction.


https://www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and-police/types-of-crime/murder-attempted-murder-and-manslaughter
Click to expand...


And because it is a common law system the "reasonable person" test.

ETA: Short essay about the "reasonable person" and how it is used in the justice system. https://johngardnerathome.info/pdfs/reasonableperson-iee.pdf
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
That's how I read it. How do you try someone for being so stupid that they literally rely on supernatural medical care? As ridiculous as it sounds, they may need to stand a competency evaluation. But it would only be murder if the State can show that they are psychopaths that intended for the girl to die.
Click to expand...

They weren't ignorant because they weren't aware. They chose to be willfully ignorant and decided they knew better. They chose to ignore sensible counsel for the sake of puerile beliefs. That level of ignorance in no way makes the crime any less...in fact makes it even worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom