HD Forums Australia
Home
Online: Nilo
Topics

Lawyer x

  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    3 years ago
    Interesting that the quashing of the convictions has not had the same degree of fanfare and tv crews circus antics as when those same people were paraded in front of the public when they were caught. Tony Mokbel has just had one of his convictions over turned. Faruk Orman, jailed for murder, and Zlate Cvetanovski, jailed for drug trafficking, have walked free in the past two years after successful appeals and that's just the tip of what will come. Not only are they free but are seeking damages for the convictions .....guess we tax payers will be footing the bill again.
    Dont forget that we also paid Lawyer x millions to give these people up on-top of what ever subsequent compensation is granted.
  • steelo
    steelo
    3 years ago
    Pleased to hear about Craig McLachlan being acquitted. 
    Don’t know that I’m as happy about these other blokes. 
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    3 years ago
    Quoting steelo on 15 Dec 2020 02:30 AMedited: 15 Dec 2020 02:31 AM

    Pleased to hear about Craig McLachlan being acquitted. 

    Don’t know that I’m as happy about these other blokes. 

    Absolutely....don't forget in our system its not about guilt, its the manner in which you found out about it. I cannot for the life of me understand how the Police thought this would ever be a good idea to get her to roll over.
  • binnsy
    binnsy
    3 years ago
    Quoting steelo on 15 Dec 2020 02:30 AMedited: 15 Dec 2020 02:31 AM

    Pleased to hear about Craig McLachlan being acquitted. 

    Don’t know that I’m as happy about these other blokes. 

    Really Steelo.!!
    Even the judge said he was guilty but just couldn't prove it.  
  • steelo
    steelo
    3 years ago
    Fair enough young Binnsy.
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    3 years ago
    Quoting steelo on 15 Dec 2020 02:30 AMedited: 15 Dec 2020 02:31 AM

    Pleased to hear about Craig McLachlan being acquitted. 

    Don’t know that I’m as happy about these other blokes. 

    Quoting binnsy on 15 Dec 2020 10:51 PM

    Really Steelo.!!

    Even the judge said he was guilty but just couldn't prove it.  

    Binnsy i believe that at the time of the offense there was a different onus of proof required, what the Judge indicated was that should the case be heard under the current statute then the result would have been different. Again whats interesting is that even though he did commit the offenses under our current laws, they were not illegal at the time of the offense and that allows him to seek legal action against the media that reported the story.
  • binnsy
    binnsy
    3 years ago
    Dont know the full story PB but i find it odd that it wasn't an offence at the time.  Would've thought some sort of indictable offence is what he would have been charged with ?
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    3 years ago
    Quoting binnsy on 21 Dec 2020 10:49 AM

    Dont know the full story PB but i find it odd that it wasn't an offence at the time.  Would've thought some sort of indictable offence is what he would have been charged with ?

    It was an offense at the time.....its just that the requirement of proof was higher back then compared to the new and amended lesser requirement. I might be cheeky and say this is to satisfy the "Me too" movement...personal opinion. My original statement regarding all court matters are "Its not about the truth, its about who tells the more credible story"
  • markwoumla
    markwoumla
    3 years ago
    Quoting binnsy on 21 Dec 2020 10:49 AM

    Dont know the full story PB but i find it odd that it wasn't an offence at the time.  Would've thought some sort of indictable offence is what he would have been charged with ?

    Quoting paulybronco on 21 Dec 2020 11:01 AM

    It was an offense at the time.....its just that the requirement of proof was higher back then compared to the new and amended lesser requirement. I might be cheeky and say this is to satisfy the "Me too" movement...personal opinion. My original statement regarding all court matters are "Its not about the truth, its about who tells the more credible story"

    "Its not about truth, its about who tells the more credible story"....

    Yea,, sounds  about right ,, but !!!.... I think you have to add to the above statement ,,,,, "With regard to the evidence presented to the court "..

    Lest face it , some Prosecutors and Defence teams can be inexperienced and/or, fuck things up, even if both sides believe they have compelling evidence for there side of the case/story..  (there not all Perry Masons). Then you have the Jury,,, 12 people, with all different world views on every topic under the sun, trying to come to an unanimous decision.... Then you have the Judge with his or her world view.. What he will or not allow , and how he instructs the jury on certain matters.... Lets not forget the media and politics ,,, if they have an agenda against you , your nearly fucked....

    Its all a bit of a shit fight,,, but they tell me its the best system we have ...

    Rule number 1 ... Dont go to fucking court..... 
    Rule number 2,3,4,5,6, etc etc  --- Same as number 1 ..... 

    Anyway ,,, blue sky here ,,, no wind,, perfect day,,, I'm going for a ride !!!!!!


     




  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    3 years ago
    "With regard to the evidence presented to the court "..   
    In some cases the decision does not support the evidence provided and is therefore used as a basis for appeal. Jury selection in Australia has not yet reached the stage of America where the defense "auditions"jury members to determine those that may well be more sympathetic to their client.
  • Wideglider
    Wideglider
    3 years ago
    Quoting paulybronco on 21 Dec 2020 10:10 PM

    "With regard to the evidence presented to the court "..   
    In some cases the decision does not support the evidence provided and is therefore used as a basis for appeal. Jury selection in Australia has not yet reached the stage of America where the defense "auditions"jury members to determine those that may well be more sympathetic to their client.

    Does the prosecution also get to "audition" prospective jury members?
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    3 years ago
    Quoting paulybronco on 21 Dec 2020 10:10 PM

    "With regard to the evidence presented to the court "..   
    In some cases the decision does not support the evidence provided and is therefore used as a basis for appeal. Jury selection in Australia has not yet reached the stage of America where the defense "auditions"jury members to determine those that may well be more sympathetic to their client.

    Quoting Wideglider on 22 Dec 2020 01:32 AM

    Does the prosecution also get to "audition" prospective jury members?

    Absolutely. The jury has to be mutually  acceptable to both sides.
Topics