Redmond Neck wrote on Oct 19^th, 2022 at 1:46pm:


This has the makings of a great spy novel.... the honey trap.... the lax security ... the late night intrusion into the minister's office....  the knockout drops to keep the honey trap silent while the papers were copied and then filched.... or he went home and she copied and filched the papers.... the desperate scramble to cover it up at 'higher-higher'.....

So she went out all night drinking without underwear on, with a guy she says she rejected earlier... goes back to a quiet place with him ... and she later says to her former boyfriend that the night didn't go as planned..... leaving question marks hanging in the air .............

Back to JFK - ask the questions.... ask the questions....

Reynolds sent her 'partner' to the court to hear the evidence of Higgins before Reynolds was called - and then said that she had no idea it was inappropriate.....  WTF??  Canberra Bubble - we are the bosses of this country - we are above the law - we can do whatever we want....

Again - I'm not saying the girl is lying.... or that Leer Man is lying ...... but hell.... what a confused mess this is ...

Quote:


Opinions were asked for.  I gave mine after all the evidence had finished.  I have sound reasons for concluding beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty.  She says he raped her.  He had all the opportunity in the World to do so.  Why take her there in the first place?  Why offer three totally different explanations about why he went there in the wee small hours.  Only one makes sense.....to drink Whisky and having a pissed female in tow.

Finally, he declined to swear on oath that he did not have sex with her.  He ran away from the witness box and cross examination, something she did not do.

Quote:


I am not dreaming.  An accused starts off with the advantage of a presumption of innocence and knowing that the Crown has to prove beyond reasonable doubt.  The Crown has the barrow to push.  Ask Igor if that is dreaming.

Quote:


So what does that have to do with this case?

Quote:


You are such an arrogant pontificating log bearing wanker on this stuff Grappler and all because it seems you have been burned by some DVO matter personally.

Aussie wrote on Oct 19^th, 2022 at 2:34pm:



And yet you said that LeerMan was guilty partly because he figured he had nothing to defend on the evidence to date.... and thus had no real obligation to give evidence, since the evidence would not support the prosecution case.

Even your assumption of guilt shows clearly the prejudice against a defendant.

P.S.  By your own petard here....... would anyone who was actually guilty of any wrongdoing be so aggrieved over the egregious intrusion with violence by a court into his private life?  A honest man tells the story openly and maintains the rage of that form of rape ... a guilty man hides and mumbles while the honest innocent man shouts from the rooftops .... your own ideas there, Aussie.... thank you for raising the issue so it could be shot down again.

Quote:


Where the fuq do you get that garbage from?  I gave my opinion.  I was asked about it.  I gave it and I have expalined why I have come to that opinion.  If I was on the Jury I would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.  There is always a doubt...but...the term is REASONABLE doubt.

I said that my opinion about his guilt was cemented when he did not give evidence.  Why did he not give evidence?  It is a simple matter.  Get in the box, and make your denial under oath and be cross examined.  Why did he not do that.  Sure, he has no obligation to do so, but......why would an innocent man in a case like this....ie it either did or did not happen, nothing about consent nuances....NOT be anxious, biting at the bit to get in the box, and say so.  Why 'plead the 5th?'

Quote:


Are you nuts?  I expressed my opinion after the evidence closed.  The Jury have to do the same.  I was putting myself in their shoes, just like you are in professing he will ultimately get off.  If I had posted that I did not believe Higgins, would you be accusing me of a bias against a person who claims to have been raped.  You are not making sense, you fool!

Quote:


Tripe which does not even make sense.  Ask Igor to write that again for you.

Aussie wrote on Oct 19^th, 2022 at 3:09pm:


So you decided on prejudice?  He chose not to give evidence, as is his right, to defeat a flimsy case .... and his story about being there was inconsistent.... and you see those two factors as proof beyond a reasonable doubt regardless of the paucity of hard evidence?

You would be excused from jury duty ......

As for the rest - learn English.  You contradict yourself one hell of a lot, Aussie.  We all know how injured you were by wiser and more experienced heads pointing out the failures of security on that night.... but there's no need to take it out on the defendant by putting together a few things not directly related to the alleged incident and then screeching 'guilty'.

Are you getting senile?  A friend asked me to ask you that ....

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 19^th, 2022 at 8:40am:


That is the basic idea behind going to court. Someone has been found associated with a scenario someone else has accused them of doing. The police entertained the scenario because the accused is found to have admitted to being within the locality of where the crime was alleged to have occurred. Because no alibi has been set by the accused, submissions to the court are made and the accused gets to either state his case, or watch the prosecution mount a case against him.

Setanta wrote on Oct 19^th, 2022 at 4:35pm:


As I have already posted, he makes that decision after being advised by the Lawyers of the pros and cons either way.  Prudent Lawyers get all that recorded in writing signed and in the hand of the client to protect their own arses if later the client tries to blame the Lawyers.

That he did not give evidence is NOT evidence of guilt.  It is a factor the Jury is entitled to take into account in arriving at their decision after being properly instructed by the Judge about his right NOT to get in the box. 

Not by itself.