Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 6^th, 2022 at 5:50pm:


Well, there ya go.  Maybe something this moron and I can agree on.  I am not sure what it ought to be exactly, but I do agree there should be some sort of surveillance on what juries get up to.

And as I’m on the topic of big court cases let me make a few passing remarks on the Bruce Lehrmann rape trial that recently saw the jury dismissed. I say nothing on the merits of the case because I believe strongly in the presumption of innocence and in fair trials for everyone. My observation is this, and I make it as a Canadian and British-trained lawyer. How can anyone get a fair trial when before it goes to trial the supposed victim gets invited to the Press Club; when the supposed victim is made a senior visiting fellow of an ANU women’s global leadership institute and is gushed over by Julia Gillard; when journalists win Logies taking sides; when (most disgracefully of all) the then prime minister Scott Morrison makes an apology to the supposed victim on the floor of Parliament? Seriously, public institutions in this country have been involved in taking sides in this matter and elevating credibility before a verdict and in direct conflict with the presumption of innocence. It’s been disgraceful. It would never have happened in Canada, not a chance (and that is with Justin Trudeau as PM and with an elite far more woke and left-wing than here). They, at least, still understand the presumption of innocence. And no one alleging rape would walk away unscathed from blowing up the plausibility of a future trial by making statements out of court of the sort we saw here.

Leave aside all views on the substance of this case. How can anyone with a straight face think the accused here can get a fair trial? Heck, I know Australia has moved away from sequestering juries but why didn’t they make an exception here and put them in a hotel with no internet till they got a verdict. That would certainly have happened in Canada with this sort of high-profile case and with so many temptations.

The one area that in my view our High Court has shown itself of late to be world class is big-ticket criminal law trials – think Pell, think Patel.

But really, it’s an embarrassment when an accused has to wait for the High Court of Australia to uphold the basic criminal procedural protections and the presumption of innocence.

[James Allan,  the Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland]

Aussie wrote on Nov 9^th, 2022 at 8:09am:


And he said nothing on the details of the case, arsie,  but focused on the operation of the law - his expertise.

Taxi!!

Aussie wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 11:17am:


Now, now - you're getting above yourself... so you agree that a story cannot purely be accepted on face value alone, and that means you now withdraw your conclusion of guilt?

Easy - simply ask them on what basis they found their verdict.....

Aussie wrote on Nov 9^th, 2022 at 8:09am:


Ahem - that's what it's all about - the rights of the defendant...

As the judge said when releasing 'Hurricane' Carter and being criticised that it was on a technicality .......

"Yes - that technicality is the United State Constitution!"

Aussie wrote on Nov 9^th, 2022 at 8:27am:



Ooooh - stroppy tonight, are we?  Throwing that M word around with gay abandon.....

I've not read back but I thought I'd drop by to ask a few questions which have been bugging me for a few days now.

How the frack is the accused expected to get a fair trial given the high publicity surrounding these proceedings?

And the matter of precedent keeps bugging me too. Essentially this is what we have here : Let's be totally honest about this for a moment. There is no actual evidence. And that's a pretty big problem too. The guy has completely denied everything ie there was no sexual contact whatsoever. Meantime the alleged victim is stating something completely different. Mind you she remained silent and waited some time before bringing her allegations before the law. And now she has no issue with stating (under oath even) that notwithstanding the fact that she was essentially seriously drunk as a skunk (CCT footage proved she had over 11 drinks that night) she now remembers everything about a rape which took place under those pissed as a parrot circumstances.

The presumption of innocence is another thing that bugs me about this matter right now. In particular...WTF is it? Right after an entire jury was dismissed in this high profile/very public trial ... for bringing in additional material regarding rape cases to try and understand why they couldn't reach a verdict  ... what happened straight afterwards??? Brittany's public relations team hit the floor running and organised press conferences with Brittany and the media throwing her into the spotlight TO THANK notable people for their support ffs! It's as if the matter had been heard/decided/finalised/dealt with! It's farkkking not! She and her public relations team should be facing charges for sub judice contempt IMO!

Which brings me to those idiots professing to be lawyers who are currently sitting comfortably in the DPP. THESE public servants ought to be sacked for wasting our taxes over a matter which they should have assessed from the get go as being VERY problematic AND difficult to win.

This fiasco over an alleged penis allegedly entering an alleged vagina will end up costing the taxpayer well over $10 million.

Meantime ... our aged care sector is bankrupt and our state health system is in crisis. 🥺😐☹️

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 9^th, 2022 at 10:10pm:


I would be certain that the accused has a penis. And the complainant has a vagina. Nothing alleged about it. And it won't cost taxpayers $10 million for either of them to dismiss any rumours about their genitalia.