Quote: Jennie @ September 7 2013, 12:23 PM BSTHe seems to have tapped into something of a sexist/homophobic/racist undercurrent to Australian society. (No offence Reds, it exists everywhere).
To top it all off, he wears Speedos.
Hopefully he'll make some gaff and disappear.
Yeah. He just seems to be more outwardly so than the alternative. I don't think his own party will get rid of him to soon. Changing Prime Ministers in the middle of a term didn't work out so well for the other guys.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 7 2013, 12:23 PM BSTHow many high profile wrongly convicted unsavouries or shadies does it take to convince the CPS that merely hounding a dodgy looking character into the ground and in effect trialling them purely for their lifestyle does not equate to real justice if it turns out they didn't actually do what's alleged?
The fact is, someone has made a serious complaint.
There is some supporting evidence - the physical violence to the girls mother when confronted with the allegations, the regular complaints of gynecological illness that is consistent with sexual abuse, the possible "confession" to a friend.
I am not saying he is guilty, or indeed that the jury will find him guilty. But I think there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution to take place.
Then okay, the lack of hard evidence to suggest she did have PS (sorry it's rather early for that kind of language for me) is my point, regardless of whether she had had it yet or not.
Yes a big factor in favour for the defence, as we agree, but why should a person be forced into a public defence of theirself on such scanty and questionable evidence? Cases with more evidence than this have surely been thrown out. If he is truly innocent as he claims, why should he have to go through this just on someone's allegations?
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 7 2013, 12:37 PM BSTbut why should a person be forced into a public defence of theirself on such scanty and questionable evidence?
What leads you to believe the evidence is scanty and questionable?
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 7 2013, 12:37 PM BSTIf he is truly innocent as he claims, why should he have to go through this just on someone's allegations?
Because he might be truly guilty.
Who knows?
So we have a trial to decide who is telling the truth - him or her.
Isn't underwear scanty, and evidence scant?
Quote: reds @ September 7 2013, 12:21 PM BSTI'm impressed you even knew who was in the running. Didn't think Aussie politics got reported on that much overseas.
I've seen it mentioned a few times this week.
Quote: zooo @ September 7 2013, 12:42 PM BSTIsn't underwear scanty, and evidence scant?
I think scanty is the adjective and scant the noun? I could be wrong though.
Quote: zooo @ September 7 2013, 12:42 PM BSTI've seen it mentioned a few times this week.
I've seen several news reports on it. Including aforementioned upsetting speedos incident.
[quote name="Jennie" post="1014978" date="September 7 2013, 12:31 PM BST"]
She is 17 now and alleges she was raped for the first time aged 6.
[quote]
Which could as you know just as likely be malicious lies dreamt up by a rejected 15 year old.
And it's because they might *not* be that there's a court case going on.
Quote: Jennie @ September 7 2013, 12:42 PM BST
So we have a trial to decide who is telling the truth - him or her.
But that's my whole point, we don't really and I'm sure you know we don't really. We have a heavily criticised adversarial prosecution which has changed little since the days of witch burning, a hostile barracking of both parties and then a jury to make their minds up based largely on allegations, clever advocacy, character portrayals and disputed evidence. This is why so many convictions are later squashed when real hard evidence turns up to prove it was er ahem, actually someone else, oops! Sorry. Is this real justice being practised?
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 7 2013, 1:02 PM BSTBut that's my whole point, we don't really and I'm sure you know we don't really. We have a heavily criticised adversarial prosecution which has changed little since the days of witch burning, a hostile barracking of both parties and then a jury to make their minds up based largely on allegations, clever advocacy and disputed evidence. This is why so many convictions are later squashed. Is this real justice?
I don't know who is telling the truth - if I ever gave you the impression I did, then I'm sorry. Of course I don't know. But you seemed to be suggesting there should be no trial at all.
It's right to say that we have an adversarial system in this country, rather than the inquisitorial systems you find on the continent. On the continent, Judges do the investigating and make their ruling. Here, we let prosecution and defence slug it out - the theory being that the truth will emerge from the carnage.
I much prefer our system, but there are those who would favour a more continental approach.
Quote: zooo @ September 7 2013, 12:42 PM BSTIsn't underwear scanty?
Madam, I'm far too polite to ask.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 7 2013, 1:02 PM BSTThis is why so many convictions are later squashed when real hard evidence turns up to prove it was er ahem, actually someone else, oops! Sorry. Is this real justice being practised?
You hear about this kind of thing in the papers precisely because it is so very rare.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 7 2013, 1:02 PM BSTa jury to make their minds up based largely on allegations, clever advocacy, character portrayals and disputed evidence.
You know, I really wish they made up their minds on the basis of my advocacy. I can count on the fingers of one hand the amount of trials I have "won" due to my ability as a barrister.
In my experience (having never been on a jury) they look at the evidence. If it is disputed, they decide what to accept and what to reject. Privately, I have rarely disagreed with the verdict of a jury. I think they generally get it right.
Quote: Jennie @ September 7 2013, 1:11 PM BSTBut you seemed to be suggesting there should be no trial at all.
Absolutely, only from what we've generally heard (or more aptly consumed) from this case. Surely there's a scale of plausibility of evidence or something and I don't see how this case can match up to it. 'Neutral medical evidence', association and just plain allegations. Where's the evidence for this heinous crime alleged?
And for me, where's the balance of considered thought by the legals here? A man on telly with a decent career wanting to make a clear decision to continually rape a girl over several years starting at the age of six! Personally he doesn't strike me as that alcoholic or insane.
Read this article today on the BBC website, I don't like vandalism but the very end line of the story made me laugh:
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 7 2013, 1:28 PM BSTAbsolutely, only from what we've generally heard (or more aptly consumed) from this case. Surely there's a scale of plausibility of evidence or something and I don't see how this case can match up to it. 'Neutral medical evidence', association and just plain allegations. Where's the evidence for this heinous crime alleged?
And for me, where's the balance of considered thought by the legals here? A man on telly with a decent career wanting to make a clear decision to continually rape a girl over several years starting at the age of six! Personally he doesn't strike me as that alcoholic or insane.
We should just ask Alfred for his hunches, not waste time on trials!