Why waste time and resources prosecuting this bloke now rather than the Bondi terrorist first?
He’s had immense support from them to this point, how much ‘professional’ legal delay work has been effectively undertaken just to keep it all at bay, and how much has that cost the taxpayer in return?
It’s the rich person’s best weapon in legal disputes - see Trump - tie them up until they run dry.
2 Likes
Wilkie spelling out some truths
3 Likes
yeah the single line of prosecutions that all happen exactly one after another is too long, get to the back BRS
8 Likes
How did these prosecutors not see deep into the future and know not to start???
5 Likes
L.O.L.
1 Like
Year 10 legal studies textbook should be able to assist.
6 Likes
Do they have year levels in home schooling?
2 Likes
Clearly prosecuting 20ish years after the alleged murders occurred is an unseemly rush.
I … partially agree with Lawry here. To echo one of our greatest minds in the fields of jurisprudence, I think this will be a very legal case. BRSs lawyers could call for the exclusion of a lot of the evidence etc based on the argument that the publicity from the Brereton inquiry has tainted the trial. There’ll be a lot of attacking of the credentials of witnesses on both sides, and seizing on minor discrepancies in testimony about the minute detail of events two decades old. I wouldn’t want to be on the jury for this one.
I disagree with Lawry about the official records. BRS was the patrol leader at the time. His version of events would have been what went into the official records, unless there was a REALLY good reason to do otherwise. And the Brereton report was fairly clear that in SAS operations in Afghanistan it was the patrol leaders who called the shots, while the upper ranks mostly just meekly sat by and let them do what they wanted.
4 Likes
This is incorrect. He’s already been found guilty on the balance of probabilities. He’s guilty. The only thing the criminal case is determining is if he’s also guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and if so punishing him.
2 Likes
Sorry mate, but nothing I said there is incorrect. Being charged does not mean you are guilty. Police charge you, a court of law decides your guilt. In that court of law, everyone enjoys the presumption of innocence. Additionally, being found guilty in a civil case with a balance of probabilities does not mean you are guilty. I’m pretty certain that O.J. Simpson was never found guilty of murder in a criminal court, even if a civil court said he was.
1 Like
It’s notches on the door frame. Once you reach a certain height the knowledge is available
1 Like
Found guilty by whom ?
The Age and ABC ? There has been no trial as yet, and a Judge in a defamation case can offer his opinion but does not prove any guilt at all.
That is a real issue in our media and general community that we convict before the trial and often before anyone is charged. Believe what you want, but he is not guilty until a Jury says he is.
1 Like
The defamation case didn’t find him guilty. It found that they were satisfied that the conduct occurred. But they weren’t required to make that finding to a criminal standard of proof.
So he’s not guilty of anything - yet.
1 Like
You’re using the word “guilty” without defining it, in the broadest sense most beneficial to BRS. Guilt is completely independent of a court case or being charged. It depends on what actually happened. Court cases simply determine if you are guilty in the eyes of the system, and on what basis.
You are using a single basis, “guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court case”, dropping all the words in your definition beyond “guilty”, and pretending this is an over-arching definition of guilt that applies across the board. When it doesn’t. Pure guilt is based on what happened, and for most people can never be 100% known. Under other definitions of guilt, he’s already been found guilty (balance of probabilities). Your definition is just a very narrow one, and under that I agree he isn’t yet guilty (beyond reasonable doubt).
A civil court has already found that on the balance of probabilities, BRS did commit murder and war crimes. i.e. in the eyes on the system he is guilty, just on a balance of probabilities basis. The criminal trial will only determine if he is guilty on a beyond reasonable doubt basis, the higher bar. Even if that fails, he is still guilty with respect to the system on the balance of probabilities basis.
A court. Which found when having to determine if the Age/ABC claims were truthful, found that on the balance of probabilities that they were.
1 Like
When it comes to a criminal trial, which is what BRS is about to face, there is only one definition of guilty. Your pedantry doesn’t alter the fact, that BRS has never been found guilty of the criminal act of murder.
This is not “most beneficial”, this is pure fact. When he has had his day in a criminal court, and a jury of his peers has reached a determination of guilt, then, and only then can you state that he is guilty of muder/war crimes. Until then, under law, he is innocent. I don’t see what is so hard for you to understand about this concept.
1 Like
This thread isn’t about the criminal trial. That is only the latest installment in a long ongoing saga. Trying to pretend “guilty on a criminal basis” is the only definition of guilty is, well, ridiculous.
You’re defining guilt on a single particular basis, that hasn’t applied in real-life or to this thread until the last few days, and implying that unless found guilty on that basis, he isn’t guilty. While ignoring the courts have already found him guilty on a different basis.
1 Like
You can claim guilt all you like, but in this case it is yet to be proven.
On the balance of probabilities, you are biased against this War Hero, but that doesn’t mean you actually are.
2 Likes
Innocent until proven guilty.
2 Likes
I’ve never said he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. What I’ve pointed out is that there are multiple definitions of “guilt”, he’s already been found guilty under some of them, and the only “true” version of guilt is one that nobody on this forum can ever be 100% sure of (which would be to 100% know what happened and that BRS did do everything he’s accused of). Only a handful of people would know if he’s truly guilty.
Why am I biased against him? What evidence do you have to say its more likely than not that I am biased against him?