You said that you could only surmise that Beale had “simply chosen to go down a lesser route”
Waiting for your analysis of the specifics of his ruling to support that surmise.
How can you state this so authoritatively unless you were personally involved in the case? It sounds more like a personal opinion.
Agreed. And I never said that they weren’t. But, judges do fck up and all the time, regardless of how the law works. This isn’t a personal attack on Judge Beale. I simply believe that he exerted his authority a bit too much in this case and could have allowed a jury to decide whether or not the prosecution’s evidence was enough to prove murderous intent - instead of deciding himself that it wasn’t. He basically forced the prosecution to abandon the murder case. Ristevski rushed to plead guilty to manslaughter because Beale halted a murder case in its tracks. And I ascertain that this is because he felt the prosecution’s evidence of Ristevski’s post-offence conduct was too weak to infer murderous intent. Do you think that it was too weak? I don’t (nor did the prosecution). Regardless, he could and should have put it to a jury - as the High Court stated very clearly in the Baden-Clay case.
1 Like
Lawyer are you?
What would you think of the parasites that sue on behalf of a man dying of mesothelioma, and after endless delays obtain a sizeable payout two weeks before their client dies.
Two weeks later the insurance company withdrew the offer, the payout was reduced to $14,000 of which the mans widow received $11,500 the lawyers couldn’t settle fast enough.
Milked the case for every cent they could over 18 months and walked away when she needed them most.
SCUM!
And I don’t need to tell you which political party they are associated with.
Also interested in the legal basis for your assertion that Beale should have put it to a a jury to decide and if so the legal guidance/ the facts that a jury should take into account.
Did you not read the link I attached above? And for further reading, you need to read and understand the High Court’s ruling in the Baden-Clay case to understand why Justice Beale should have put it to a jury.
I have my own theory, male entitlement plays a huge part. I can also say that these men’s have off the chart rates of ASPD and narcissistic personality disorders - it’s a very very dangerous mix
It was certainly acceptable for him to rape her. In fact, and in law, he couldn’t rape her, she was his property to sexually assault anytime he felt like it.
1 Like
Should the law change? If they can’t even be certain how she died should they be able to sustain a murder conviction?
2 Likes
Yes , I did, still waiting for your analysis. Do not apppteciate your PMs and your denigrations of others What exaxctly is your expertise to claim superior knowledge…
@SMJ & I call each other hacks (and a lot worse) all the time. But, you continue to sit on your high horse, BA.
And, no, I won’t be answering your demanding questions any more than I already have. Condescend all you like. I put clear points forward, but you haven’t addressed them.
A judge’s ruling (on intent) is the reason this case was downgraded from murder to manslaughter. Even then, he delivered a pathetic sentence. But, that’s a whole different argument - one that I won’t be having with you - as I’m sure you will find a ridiculous way to justify it.
Sadly correct in Law in Australia until South Australia became the first jurisdiction in the World in 1976 to make rape in marriage a crime.
I would argue though that it was not “acceptable” for many decades before that.
1 Like
What is your point ?
Visit your Pharmacist and sort out the drugs, clearly affecting you worse than normal.
Sentences in Victoria are light full stop, especially for female offenders IMO. It’s got nothing to to do with society not preaching against “violence against women”. Yes, it certainly appears odd on the surface that he wasn’t charged with murder, but obviously and unfortunately there was something vital they couldn’t prove.
1 Like
Did Borce also collect her Life Insurance? If he did then that actually adds insult to injury.
Interesting idea in the paper that if you refuse to detail events , you don’t get parole eligibility. Right to remain silent remains, but no sentencing discounts for doing so. Similar to the “won’t reveal the body location” lawchange. Obviously only works for guilty plea’s, obvious problems if someone protests innocence.
This isn’t quite right. He didn’t decide that the facts making up case were too weak. That would be a question of fact. What he decided was a question of law. Questions of law aren’t put to juries.
Put simply, he had to answer the question as to whether the conduct could ever, as a matter of law, be enough to prove murderous intent. It’s a subtle but important distinction
1 Like
Yeah but that’s a useless law. Nothing to stop him from making up a story and getting the discount, so in reality there’s no change to the status quo
My question was, who is on the take? The take can be taken in a number of ways. Well known facts are, Lawyers often wait for a particular judge who looks at a case in a particular way. or does a deal with the DPP.
There are a number of things about this case which are disturbing which I am not going to mention here. However things previously said by others, friends of and members of the family about strange relationships within the family.
I am not a lawyer nor do I work in the legal system. I do however have a real problem with people deciding sentences arent sufficiently tough, or charges arent tough enough without being able to avail themselves of the full facts of the case.
I have a great respect for our legal system. I know its not perfect and I know there are miscarriages of justice. I would however prefer a system that produces the current sentence, i.e. errs on the side of the defendant, rather than innocent people being found guilty.
If the judge has decided that there was no chance in law that he could be found guilty of murder then thats Its really. Thats what he is there for. And its also about the protection of all of us from an over-zealous state.
Its easy to look from afar and criticise the system, but its stood us in good stead for a long time.
8 Likes
That is just nonsense… Reckon you need to calm down over this.
1 Like