Why was killer released?
Amanda Watt
November 14, 2006 11:00pm
Article from: The Courier Mail www.thecouriermail.news.com.au
THE heartbroken parents of murdered Ipswich woman Nina Lewis have laid part of the blame for their daughter's death at the feet of the parole board that released him back into the community.
Ms Lewis, 26, was abducted and killed by her next door neighbour Paul Anthony Vaughan in August 2004.
Vaughan, now 30, _ pleaded guilty to her murder on Monday _ and was this morning jailed for life.
At the time of killing Lewis, Vaughan was on parole for kidnapping and attempting to rape a teenage girl. He was five months short of his full-time release date.
The Courier-Mail revealed today that prison authorities had opposed Vaughan's early release in 2002 when he applied to the Queensland West Moreton Regional Community Board for parole.
He was released on May 13, 2002.
Reading from a prepared statement outside the Brisbane Supreme Court this morning, Geoff Lewis said he and his wife Karen believed the parole board had to take some responsibility for Vaughan's actions.
``If Paul Vaughan had finished serving his sentence for a previous conviction and had not been out on parole, Nina would be alive today,'' Mr Lewis said.
``We also believe that if an offender is out on parole for a serious crime the neighbourhood in which he lives should be notified.
``If Nina had been notified she would not have been living next to Paul Vaughan and she would be alive today.
The couple said they would not be purusing the parole board issue any further for the time being but would be ``fighting very hard to keep this animal inside''.
Mrs Lewis said she believed Vaughan was beyond rehabiliation and would offend again if he was released.
``It (the more than two years since Nina died) has been hell, sheer hell,'' Mrs Lewis said.
``Until you are in my footsteps you'd never know how bad it was.''
Homicide Squad chief Mike Condon said the thoughts of the Queensland Police Service were with the victim's family.
``It's comforting to know that this dangerous individual will be off the streets for quite a number of years,'' Mr Condon said.
In sentencing Vaughan to a mandatory life sentence Justice Margaret White said while legislation allowed Vaughan to apply for parole after serving 15 years of his setence, it was important to note that it was up to the authorities at the time to decide whether it was safe to release him.
``It is an appalling case, the family are utterly devastated by what you did to her (Nina Lewis),'' Justice White told Vaughan.
``Nothing I say or nothing you say in the future can ever assist this family through their grief.''
I had a bit too do with this case, having to guard scene etc etc. I also knew the detectives well who put this son of a @#$% behind bars. I also agree with the parents in that this monster should not have been released in the first place. He simply learnt in jail to kill his victim, instead of letting them go.
What annoys me now is that he can apply for parole in 15 years time. In my books life means life. He should have to rot in jail until he dies in my books. If he is successful again with parole he'll be in his late 40's early 50's and still will be able to commit these types of offences.
Just a bit more on the good work all the boys and girls in the QPS did to catch this killer.
Concealment led to arrest
Paula Doneman
November 15, 2006 11:00pm
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
A FOOTPRINT in washing powder, a pair of discarded shoes and a forgotten fingerprint helped expose Paul Anthony Vaughan as a killer.
Vaughan left behind the evidence while trying to conceal the abduction and murder of his neighbour Nina Lewis at Ipswich on August 30, 2004.
Police believe he went to Nina's Aspinall St home at Leichardt after 5.20pm.
Vaughan – a convicted sex predator on parole for the kidnapping and attempted rape of a 17-year-old girl – is believed to have kept Nina captive for several hours before killing her about midnight.
It is believed he bludgeoned her to death with a hammer.
Arresting officer Ipswich Detective-Sergeant Tom Armitt said Vaughan was unsure what happened during that time because Vaughan has never revealed what went on.
What is known is that Vaughan killed Nina about midnight.
It is believed he bludgeoned her to death with a hammer.
Det-Sgt Armitt said what is known is that Vaughan then dumped her body – tying her wrists together and bounding her eyes, mouth and ankles with duct tape – in the Brisbane River at the Kholo Bridge.
Vaughan got rid of her car in bushland before returning to the house Nina had bought three months earlier.
He turned on the bathroom taps to flood the house and poured washing powder over the floors.
But his attempts to wash away the evidence failed and he left behind a footprint.
Nina was reported missing the next day when she failed to turn up to work.
An examination of Nina's house, found a footprint in washing powder in the front room.
The day after Nina's disappearance, her partially burnt out car was found.
Inside there was another clue – a pair of shoes matching the footprint found at her house.
On September 4, a kayaker discovered Nina's body.
Sgt Armitt said scientific officers were able to lift a fingerprint from underneath the layers of duct tape used to bind her legs
.
During the initial investigation, Vaughan had told police he had seen Nina washing her car on the afternoon of August 30.
His version was inconsistent with other witnesses.
When police spoke to him again, he denied killing Nina. But a few hours later, he told them he had been present when his friend murdered her.
Using his version of events, police were able to piece together a timeline of witnesses and Vaughan's movements.
"That gave us an exact window of time when the murder occurred ... our inquiries show that the man nominated by Vaughan as the killer was caught on video tape at a service station getting a meal for himself when he was supposed to be committing the murder," Sgt Armitt said.
When they interviewed Vaughan again, he broke down and confessed.
Tests later found that the footprint in the house and the fingerprints on the tape also belonged to Vaughan.
"The basic version was that he had gone there to steal from her and because he was on parole, he had murdered her to try and conceal what he had done."