The unfortunate truth is that the average time spent in jail by convicted paedophiles is just 2 years.... Lord Herbert

I have no doubt you are in the range there herbie....  they are just too much trouble for the Prison system to contain.. so they're in and out pretty quick... 

but your relevance is..???  This is to do with RH  how..?   

....it seems I find myself always trying to get some clear statements from people...  and you know..?  no reference here to you herbie..      the more obfuscation one encounters on pursuing a point .. the more one understands what degree of liar  one is dealing with.


OFF POINT FOR a MO..  but has lateral relevance..   
So..
..It  does  seem LIARS are ruling the day...  if one accepts my preposition...see BOLD  above

.  

Look at our current mighty Leaders..Have never heard MORE obfuscation,  misdirection, red herrings and beat ups... ie LIES in my life before.. so blatant  ... so deceitful.. so secretive  .. so confident in their apparent supremacy..

I looked for an emoticon to indicate  VOMIT.....
TECHNICOLOUR YAWN ...
SADLY nothing comes up.. so... please see the umbrellas above... 

thats to ward of the ...........   

Emma wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 10:09pm:


You do realise an alleged  victim can be an eyewtiness also dont you? [/quote]


Do I?  No...  I don't see how that would work .. at least here..  you are saying..???

... a respondent can also be treated independently... as  an eyewitness..in the same matter..??

I  don't really see how that would work...
Perhaps possible if they were eye witness to some other alleged crime... but in their own  matter..?? 

Don't think so,..  Anyone like to add some advice..?? or  opinion  .. if you must..

 
[/quote]what  do you think eye witness means? Of course alleged victims are eye witnesses, why on earth would they be treated "independently"? You really need to learn a few things Emma,  you really come over as another version of Cods.

you'd know this is pure nonsense,  how exactly..??

Lord Herbert says ....The unfortunate truth is that the average time spent in jail by convicted paedophiles is just 2 years.

Now I use this purely as an example...   L H says AVE 2 YRS..that means a convicted pedo could be in jail for a week,,  or  10 yrs.. ... depending..  but I'd suggest again... that minimal sentencing is the rule when it comes to these convicted offenders,,,  unless of course,, they are also murderers,  so one or two child killers would skew the average... 
stats are not reliable,

but I ask again.. on what basis do you say this is nonsense..?? 'Cos you don't agree..??  or  is there some thing else you'd like to add in support..??  . 





what  do you think eye witness means?

Of course alleged victims are eye witnesses, why on earth would they be treated "independently"?

You really need to learn a few things Emma,  you really come over as another version of Cods.


You do realise an alleged  victim can be an eyewtiness also dont you? [/quote]


Do I?  No...  I don't see how that would work .. at least here..  you are saying..???

... a respondent can also be treated independently... as  an eyewitness..in the same matter..??

I  don't really see how that would work...
Perhaps possible if they were eye witness to some other alleged crime... but in their own  matter..?? 


Do you see how confused you are .. Hmmm??? 
I replied to you as per all the above ... 


and OK I should have said Complainant not Respondent .. oops got confused..

BUT still  how can a complainant also be an eyewitness to the offense..???  That IS nonsense... 
A Complainant can give testimony ...  but they are not eye witnesses.. 
definition of eyewitness..???

n. A person who has seen a particular event or act and can describe it, for example in Court.

DO you note it doesn't includes participants in the act.. ?? 

Your comprehension is lacking here...  we seem to be incapable of understanding each other..


YOU seem to be saying each complainant (preferable to 'alleged victim' )  should be looked at as an individual matter, and no crossover evidence should be allowed,  by other Complainants...  because...???

Well thats what I thought you were saying... that they should not be able to give testimony,, as a sort of group,, but be examined individually.
I AM saying..all the complainants testimony should be heard as a whole...

Sorry if this is a bit beyond you.. you are remarkably one-eyed...   





                               

cods wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 2:04pm:


From what I have read of the guy, he was psychotic and quite a few people knew it. Not only with kids, but with dead bodies. How it never broke in the news way earlier, I do not know.

BUT I don't know if you can really judge evil by someone's physical appearance. I guess we make judgements all the time, based on dress etc

But whacky/weird doesn't necessarily translate to evil.

red baron wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 8:20am:


Don't forget the jury has a lot of information to sift through, over 30 years of history so it's not unusual that it could take a long time for some to decide.

I don't think they will have another trial.

red baron wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 8:20am:


Not before he gives them a chance at a 'majority' verdict.

Aussie wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 9:44am:



I oppose majority verdicts for the simple reason that the ONLY safeguard genuinely available in law for an accused is the doubt in the mind of a juror.  Many accused are convicted on assumption, supposition, innuendo, and outright lies.. more often then you think...  and if one person sees the validity of dealing with proven fact to the proper standard - that person constitutes a majority of one.

How would YOU like to be convicted by a majority verdict knowing youa re innocent?

Up to one in six, by any rendering of serious criminal convictions, are wrongful convictions.  It stands to reason for anyone with any expereince that in traffic etc matters, that could be as high as 100%... since zero proof is demanded by courts over such 'minor' matters which mysteriously recoup money for the state and run the court system for free for them.

Problem with that - and also with the massive reduction in demand for evidence and proof in DV etc issues - is that it lowers the value of the NEED for properly proven evidence in the eyes of courts, magistrates, judges, and the public as well - including the public on juries.

Come back and argue the next time you are pinged for 'not wearing a seat belt' by a cop passing five lanes away on a six-laner at 110 km each way..... or are pinged - as my ex was - for doing 119 km/h at night when she drives slowly for wildlife while slowing down uphill on a bend to make a 90 degree turn to go home.. and then be accused by the same sleepy cop of trying to get away from him by turning off!  Woke him up and startled him - or he was one of those crazies that should not be allowed out of the station - let alone in the police force.

NEVER defend police and courts to me - many of these are the greatest criminals in this country.