Australian Politics Forum - Schapelle Corby, parole decision..

red baron Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 10204 Blue Mountains Gender:	Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision.. Reply #390 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:19pm double ditto
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38580 Gender:	Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision.. Reply #391 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:19pm *
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38580 Gender:	Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision.. Reply #392 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:19pm **
Back to top	IP Logged

red baron Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 10204 Blue Mountains Gender:	Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision.. Reply #393 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:19pm triple ditto with pike
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38580 Gender:	Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision.. Reply #394 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:19pm ***
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38580 Gender:	Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision.. Reply #395 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:20pm ****
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38580 Gender:	Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision.. Reply #396 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:20pm *****
Back to top	IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 84099
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision..
Reply #397 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:26pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 2:46pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 2:36pm:

Come on, guys - you KNOW that facts and diligent investigation of all aspects of a case are only on TV - SOP is just get enough for a conviction - which the 'law' see as being their job - and not investigate fully in case there may be exculpatory evidence, or even - God forbid - reasonable doubt.

it's not the job of police to create reasonable doubt ... police have to follow the evidence and when they can prove a crime, make arrests .... it's up to her lawyer to create reasonable doubt. They don't have to tell the truth to do so either ... they can make any sort of crap up ... as long as it's plausible

It is the job of the police to make a thorough investigation - and their duty is not to any one side of the issue - it is to all parties. thus exculpatory evidence, when available and within their sight - must be pursued.

There are (I'm not at home) clear court instructions to that effect - but Tom Molomby -The Shearer's Tale and John Grisham - The Innocent Man (non fiction) - both contain clear examples where police exceeded their rights in pursuing any evidence of guilt but ignored or excluded clear evidence that was exculpatory.

The duty of police is to the Crown - to pursue truth as much as possible - NOT to simply get people convicted on suspicion or on complaint.

That's the theory anyway.

ADDS:- Do YOU think that Liz herself would tolerate someone abusing their oath to the Crown by making up stories?

I remind you that GA here wishes a Return of the King - the re-institution, at the very least, of the rights once held by the people as sovereign to appeal to the Crown direct, even via the Privy Council - a council with the ear of the sovereign, who can then decide that an injustice has been done.

The extreme end of that is re-installing the monarchy complete - or a benevolent dictator such as my good self.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Lord Herbert Gold Member Offline Posts: 34441 Gender:	Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision.. Reply #398 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:28pm Told ya so.
Back to top	IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 84099
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision..
Reply #399 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:33pm

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:17pm:

Quote:

Protesting your innocence in Indonesia, subsequent to a conviction, is not smart if you want to go home, it’s seen to be a slur against their justice system.

“Contrition” is what they want to hear. “Admit your guilt! Tell us how judicious and sagacious we were to give you twenty years for a bag of bloody hooch, chuck a fist-full of dollars this way and you’ll be out in no time.”

Pickering

Same here, Herb - same here. Appeal here and the court will treat you like a criminal for even having the damned gall to challenge a 'magistrate's' decision.

Not only is there a chance of contempt of court, but the contempt of the court for all equally still resides here in Freeland Oz...

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Cliff48

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics />

Posts: 2109
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision..
Reply #400 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:36pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 2:46pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 2:36pm:

Come on, guys - you KNOW that facts and diligent investigation of all aspects of a case are only on TV - SOP is just get enough for a conviction - which the 'law' see as being their job - and not investigate fully in case there may be exculpatory evidence, or even - God forbid - reasonable doubt.

it's not the job of police to create reasonable doubt ... police have to follow the evidence and when they can prove a crime, make arrests .... it's up to her lawyer to create reasonable doubt. They don't have to tell the truth to do so either ... they can make any sort of crap up ... as long as it's plausible

It is the job of the police to make a thorough investigation - and their duty is not to any one side of the issue - it is to all parties. thus exculpatory evidence, when available and within their sight - must be pursued.

There are (I'm not at home) clear court instructions to that effect - but Tom Molomby -The Shearer's Tale and John Grisham - The Innocent Man (non fiction) - both contain clear examples where police exceeded their rights in pursuing any evidence of guilt but ignored or excluded clear evidence that was exculpatory.

The duty of police is to the Crown - to pursue truth as much as possible - NOT to simply get people convicted on suspicion or on complaint.

That's the theory anyway.

ADDS:- Do YOU think that Liz herself would tolerate someone abusing their oath to the Crown by making up stories?

I remind you that GA here wishes a Return of the King - the re-institution, at the very least, of the rights once held by the people as sovereign to appeal to the Crown direct, even via the Privy Council - a council with the ear of the sovereign, who can then decide that an injustice has been done.

The extreme end of that is re-installing the monarchy complete - or a benevolent dictator such as my good self.

"Crown" - in Indonesia? Is it called that there too?

BTW - could you also address my previous question (posted just before the many retard bumps).

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74360
Gender: male

Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision..
Reply #401 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:45pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:26pm:

It is the job of the police to make a thorough investigation - and their duty is not to any one side of the issue - it is to all parties. thus exculpatory evidence, when available and within their sight - must be pursued.There are (I'm not at home) clear court instructions to that effect - but Tom Molomby -The Shearer's Tale and John Grisham - The Innocent Man (non fiction) - both contain clear examples where police exceeded their rights in pursuing any evidence of guilt but ignored or excluded clear evidence that was exculpatory.The duty of police is to the Crown - to pursue truth as much as possible - NOT to simply get people convicted on suspicion or on complaint.That's the theory anyway.ADDS:- Do YOU think that Liz herself would tolerate someone abusing their oath to the Crown by making up stories?I remind you that GA here wishes a Return of the King - the re-institution, at the very least, of the rights once held by the people as sovereign to appeal to the Crown direct, even via the Privy Council - a council with the ear of the sovereign, who can then decide that an injustice has been done.The extreme end of that is re-installing the monarchy complete - or a benevolent dictator such as my good self.

you seem to mistake Australias legal system for Indonesia's ....

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38580
Gender: male

Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision..
Reply #402 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:46pm

Cliff48 wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:36pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 2:46pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 2:36pm:

Come on, guys - you KNOW that facts and diligent investigation of all aspects of a case are only on TV - SOP is just get enough for a conviction - which the 'law' see as being their job - and not investigate fully in case there may be exculpatory evidence, or even - God forbid - reasonable doubt.

it's not the job of police to create reasonable doubt ... police have to follow the evidence and when they can prove a crime, make arrests .... it's up to her lawyer to create reasonable doubt. They don't have to tell the truth to do so either ... they can make any sort of crap up ... as long as it's plausible

It is the job of the police to make a thorough investigation - and their duty is not to any one side of the issue - it is to all parties. thus exculpatory evidence, when available and within their sight - must be pursued.

There are (I'm not at home) clear court instructions to that effect - but Tom Molomby -The Shearer's Tale and John Grisham - The Innocent Man (non fiction) - both contain clear examples where police exceeded their rights in pursuing any evidence of guilt but ignored or excluded clear evidence that was exculpatory.

The duty of police is to the Crown - to pursue truth as much as possible - NOT to simply get people convicted on suspicion or on complaint.

That's the theory anyway.

ADDS:- Do YOU think that Liz herself would tolerate someone abusing their oath to the Crown by making up stories?

I remind you that GA here wishes a Return of the King - the re-institution, at the very least, of the rights once held by the people as sovereign to appeal to the Crown direct, even via the Privy Council - a council with the ear of the sovereign, who can then decide that an injustice has been done.

The extreme end of that is re-installing the monarchy complete - or a benevolent dictator such as my good self.

"Crown" - in Indonesia? Is it called that there too?

BTW - could you also address my previous question (posted just before the many retard bumps).

If they had not been made, you'd probably be reading this next week.

Back to top

IP Logged

Cliff48

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics />

Posts: 2109
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision..
Reply #403 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:49pm

Aussie wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:46pm:

Cliff48 wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:36pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 2:46pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 2:36pm:

Come on, guys - you KNOW that facts and diligent investigation of all aspects of a case are only on TV - SOP is just get enough for a conviction - which the 'law' see as being their job - and not investigate fully in case there may be exculpatory evidence, or even - God forbid - reasonable doubt.

it's not the job of police to create reasonable doubt ... police have to follow the evidence and when they can prove a crime, make arrests .... it's up to her lawyer to create reasonable doubt. They don't have to tell the truth to do so either ... they can make any sort of crap up ... as long as it's plausible

It is the job of the police to make a thorough investigation - and their duty is not to any one side of the issue - it is to all parties. thus exculpatory evidence, when available and within their sight - must be pursued.

There are (I'm not at home) clear court instructions to that effect - but Tom Molomby -The Shearer's Tale and John Grisham - The Innocent Man (non fiction) - both contain clear examples where police exceeded their rights in pursuing any evidence of guilt but ignored or excluded clear evidence that was exculpatory.

The duty of police is to the Crown - to pursue truth as much as possible - NOT to simply get people convicted on suspicion or on complaint.

That's the theory anyway.

ADDS:- Do YOU think that Liz herself would tolerate someone abusing their oath to the Crown by making up stories?

I remind you that GA here wishes a Return of the King - the re-institution, at the very least, of the rights once held by the people as sovereign to appeal to the Crown direct, even via the Privy Council - a council with the ear of the sovereign, who can then decide that an injustice has been done.

The extreme end of that is re-installing the monarchy complete - or a benevolent dictator such as my good self.

"Crown" - in Indonesia? Is it called that there too?

BTW - could you also address my previous question (posted just before the many retard bumps).

If they had not been made, you'd probably be reading this next week.

I dont understand. Why is that Aussie?

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74360
Gender: male

Re: Schapelle Corby, parole decision..
Reply #404 - Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:50pm

Cliff48 wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:49pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:46pm:

Cliff48 wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:36pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 3:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 2:46pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 10^th, 2014 at 2:36pm:

Come on, guys - you KNOW that facts and diligent investigation of all aspects of a case are only on TV - SOP is just get enough for a conviction - which the 'law' see as being their job - and not investigate fully in case there may be exculpatory evidence, or even - God forbid - reasonable doubt.

it's not the job of police to create reasonable doubt ... police have to follow the evidence and when they can prove a crime, make arrests .... it's up to her lawyer to create reasonable doubt. They don't have to tell the truth to do so either ... they can make any sort of crap up ... as long as it's plausible

It is the job of the police to make a thorough investigation - and their duty is not to any one side of the issue - it is to all parties. thus exculpatory evidence, when available and within their sight - must be pursued.

There are (I'm not at home) clear court instructions to that effect - but Tom Molomby -The Shearer's Tale and John Grisham - The Innocent Man (non fiction) - both contain clear examples where police exceeded their rights in pursuing any evidence of guilt but ignored or excluded clear evidence that was exculpatory.

The duty of police is to the Crown - to pursue truth as much as possible - NOT to simply get people convicted on suspicion or on complaint.

That's the theory anyway.

ADDS:- Do YOU think that Liz herself would tolerate someone abusing their oath to the Crown by making up stories?

I remind you that GA here wishes a Return of the King - the re-institution, at the very least, of the rights once held by the people as sovereign to appeal to the Crown direct, even via the Privy Council - a council with the ear of the sovereign, who can then decide that an injustice has been done.

The extreme end of that is re-installing the monarchy complete - or a benevolent dictator such as my good self.

"Crown" - in Indonesia? Is it called that there too?

BTW - could you also address my previous question (posted just before the many retard bumps).

If they had not been made, you'd probably be reading this next week.

I dont understand. Why is that Aussie?

thats how long you'd be waiting for the page to flip over

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged