Aussie wrote on Oct 19^th, 2022 at 5:15pm:


Yet that is when guilt was cemented as far as you are concerned?

In some ways this shows the dire straits our court system is in, along the lines I've pointed out already.

Unanimous verdict required..... hung jury...

Ain't I a bastard to try to bring down?  P-47 of the skies with a 0.7% loss rate overall.... Jesus the Typhoon had 61% ....yoicks ...

No wonder I've lost any faith in some of you here and am happy to eat you alive..... I guess it all started when people actually defended Lefty and his insanities and endless abuse ..... after that all rights have ceased.

Setanta wrote on Oct 19^th, 2022 at 5:20pm:


Yes.  Ferfuqsake, how dumb are people?

Here I am sitting observing, just like the Jury but they are hearing it, reading that she has SWORN on OATH that he raped her.  So....I (they) look around and say.  'So, what does he say?'

The answer is...at the end of the Prosecution case... he told the Cops he did nothing...nada...did not do it.  Not on oath.

So I says to myself (and the Jury can do the same)....will he get in the Box and SWEAR ON OATH he did not do it.  Will he allow himself to be cross examined so that he can explain why he gave THREE different versions.

(This is what actually happens.)

At the end of the Prosecution case, the Judge asks the Defence Counsel if they propose to call evidence.  That happened in this case.

I was waiting with bated breath to hear the answer, as the Jury would have been.

The answer was, 'No.'

So........what am I left with.  What is the Jury left with to consider.

On the one hand, I, they have the SWORN evidence of Higgins who was in the box before them, and they saw her talk and they saw her answer questions UNDER OATH including being cross-examined.  They had a first hand opportunity to evaluate her in all respects

On the other hand, I, they, have seen a video of the accused being questioned by the Coppers at the Cop Shop....he NOT under oath, and he NOT cross-examined.  He likely had a Lawyer by his side at the time also but I am conjecturing there.  Point is....he could and did say whatever he liked to Coppers without repercussion and under no pressure of a Court Room and the presence of a Judge and a Jury watching him talk.

So.....here we are, the Jury, tossing things up.....who do I believe, her or him.

ONE factor that is taken into account is that he never fronted the Jury in the box, she did.  Sworn and tested testimony v untested gibber to a Copper.

Take your pick.

One of the cons in not calling evidence, including from the accused is....that Defence Counsel gets second last shot at talking to the Jury.  Crown goes first, Defence second and then the 13th Juror.

If the Defence calls evidence, Defence goes first, then Crown, then 13th Juror.

There is an advantage in going second and ferfuqsake I do hope I don't have to explain that...or do I?

So....why did I decide I was happy to convict beyond reasonable doubt?

1.  He gave three different versions about why he had to go to PHouse that night.  That is telling.  If there was truth being told, there is ONE reason, or maybe two but both reasons given at the same time, not three different reasons given at three different times.

2.  She swore he raped her.

3.  That is pretty good stuff indicating guilt.

4.  So......my concerns have to reasonably vanish if he gets in the Box and (a) denies he touched her and (b) also explains why there are THREE different reasons for being at the alleged crime scene.  I expected that an innocent man would have no issue doing that.   He failed my litmus test on who is telling the truth.

"The accused has not given [or called] any evidence in response to the Crown’s case.

The Crown bears the onus of satisfying you beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence charged.

The accused bears no onus of proof in respect of any fact that is in dispute. Although an accused person is entitled to give or call evidence in a criminal trial, there is no obligation upon [him/her] to do so. [He/She] is presumed to be innocent until you have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence led by the Crown that [he/she] is guilty of the offence charged. Therefore, it follows that the accused is entitled to say nothing and make the Crown prove [his/her] guilt to the high standard required.

The accused’s decision not to give evidence cannot be used against [him/her] in any way at all during the course of your deliberations. That decision cannot be used by you as amounting to an admission of guilt. You must not draw any inference or reach any conclusion based upon the fact that the accused decided not to give (or call) evidence. You cannot use that fact to fill any gaps that you might think exist in the evidence tendered by the Crown. It cannot be used in any way as strengthening the Crown case or in assisting the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

You must not speculate about what might have been said in evidence if the accused had given evidence (or what might have been said by [name of person] if that person had been called by the accused as a witness in the trial)."

What am I missing here?  When you say you find him guilty partly because he did not give evidence himself..... clearly you have over-stepped that mark.

What about that dress she wore on the night without panties! which she said she hid under her bed because of shame and said she never wore again untill a photo emerged of her wearing it 2 weeks later and probably commando style, she forgot about that, Reynolds might have been right all along calling her a "lying cow" consider your verdict.

Her ex bosses in Reynolds and Cash have not given her any character references, they bagged her.

Aussie wrote on Oct 19^th, 2022 at 6:04pm:


Me, whether guilty or innocent, either way you want to get found innocent, yeah?, would probably follow what I was councelled to, to achieve that outcome. I don't know that you can hinge the rest of his life on that cementing his guilt.