“Your honor, have you heard of the 34 athletes…”
Yep, I joke about the Judge Dredd system, but even that is better than what I know about North Korea, aspects of China and Russia, Burma and Laos, Syria, and more than one place in South America.
The defence would like to call Bruce Francis to testify.
Strange - This thread is full of comments with people not having heard the evidence - Try again.
I’m relying on the evidence that this child rapist was convicted by a jury.
He’s a paedophile, a rapist, and failed to prevent others behaving similarly.
You can have the opinion that it is not ‘cut and dried’ but I think your opinion would have to be at least partly uniformed if you have not heard all the evidence and seen the testimony of the victim.
The difference is we are not stating that evidence was inadequate without seeing it. We’re trusting that the jury did its job, because that’s how our legal system works.
Just wondering whether there have been any historical clerical abuse convictions overturned on ground of unreasonableness of the jury verdict.
Is there a common standard of unreasonableness or a distinct standard for such cases? Could dismissal at the committal stage be relevant?
Yeah, there’s this “evidence, all seen by the jury ‘n’ stuff”, but then there’s the “alternative evidence” not seen by anyone else.
I mean, how could 12 random people be more correct than Howard, Abbott and Bolt?
Frank Brennan now justifying his earlier commentary on the grounds of bringing a legal perspective to balance journalist commentary on evidence. I take that to be a swipe at Lucie Morris Marr, who voiced some views in the New Daily. She sat through the whole trial and, while I might have reservations about her reporting style she should not stand condemned for not being a lawyer.
How does Brennan feel about jurors without legal expertise?
You forgot ‘vanilla sex’ Richter, So it’s 12/1
Strange? What’s strange is anyone sticking up for a convicted child rapist without hearing the evidence.
Equating (any element of) the saga with the Pell case is preposterous wankery of the highest order (and downright offensive).
As a catholic that’s nothing short of disgraceful
I didn’t think it possible, but this thread at times has actually become a bigger turd than the subject of it.
That’s gotta be taking the pisss,… right?
Even the quote from Bishop Fisher refers to apologists in denial.