Well there ya go... I never knowed that!   Not much!

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/25459569/jurors-think-docks-mean-guilt-research/

"If an alleged terrorist sits behind glass in court, they must be guilty, right?

At least that's what juries are likely to think, according to Australian researchers, who found that defendants in glass docks are twice as likely to be convicted than if seated at the bar table.

More than 400 jurors watched mock trials of people accused of plotting a terrorist act for the University of Western Sydney study.

In some of the trials, juries saw the defendant sitting in an enclosed glass dock, while in others they sat in an open dock or at the bar table beside their lawyers.

For those behind glass, six in 10 jurors found them guilty.

Almost half found those in the open dock guilty, while just three in 10 decided the defendants at the table had committed a crime."

They bring this guy in under police escort, with handcuffs on, and sit him in a dock separate from everyone else, and the jury isn't going to assume he's guilty?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I've been on Jury Duty.
there's a bit of pressure and 'unpleasantness' in there.

Of course they are guilty.
Don't be immature about it.

a lot of obviously guilty people get off. Anything that balances the scales a bit the other way is a good thing.

A lot of obviously innocent people get convicted..... the point is - there is NO privilege of 'balancing' in the case of perceived 'people getting off' in Law.

That's why we "had" law - so as to ensure that ONLY facts prevailed and ONLY the clearly guilty were convicted - not the current catch-all approach.

"'The strength and majesty of our judicial system is founded on the exposition of the truth through a process of submission of evidence and argument to a body of neutral citizens and not through a process of imagery conjured by Madison Avenue public relations and a collection of uninformed celebrities'.   - Ronald Marmo, prosecutor in case of Hurricane Carter."

You may add to that 'assumption, supposition, innuendo, and suggestion' - and to the list of those supported by 'imagery' - any officer of the law or government who makes n outlandish claim that indicates guilt or culpability in any way.

Now - if you can cite to me ONE person guilty who got off - I'm all ears.... but when a person can be convicted of not wearing a seat belt on the observation of a police officer traveling in the opposite direction at a closing combined speed of 200 kph.. I'm again all ears.

ian wrote on Nov 7^th, 2014 at 11:33pm:

a lot of obviously guilty people get off. Anything that balances the scales a bit the other way is a good thing.

So you consider innocent people being pronounced guilty balances the scales?

The real issue here is that wealthy people get off easily because they can afford good legal representation. Only poor people end up in docks because they could not afford the bail.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 7^th, 2014 at 11:55pm:

ian wrote on Nov 7th, 2014 at 11:33pm: a lot of obviously guilty people get off. Anything that balances the scales a bit the other way is a good thing. So you consider innocent people being pronounced guilty balances the scales?

He just hung you by the balls, Ian.  You've earned my respect for some views.. this is not one, and rather a demonstration of naivety and the power of hearsay..  :)

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 7^th, 2014 at 11:55pm:

ian wrote on Nov 7th, 2014 at 11:33pm: a lot of obviously guilty people get off. Anything that balances the scales a bit the other way is a good thing. So you consider innocent people being pronounced guilty balances the scales? .

99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway, the coppers know they have to bring the evidence to court before they have prospect of conviction.  Resources are limited and have to be allocated, its not even a case that every known crime is even going to be eventually prosecuted even though the perpertrators are known. Theres too much bias in court towards the rights of the accused also, theres an enormous amount of guilty people get off scott free compared to the extreme rarity of an innocent person being found guilty.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 7^th, 2014 at 11:57pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 7th, 2014 at 11:55pm: ian wrote on Nov 7th, 2014 at 11:33pm: a lot of obviously guilty people get off. Anything that balances the scales a bit the other way is a good thing. So you consider innocent people being pronounced guilty balances the scales? He just hung you by the balls, Ian.  You've earned my respect for some views.. this is not one, and rather a demonstration of naivety and the power of hearsay..  :)

Ive sat through enough trials to have a reasoned opinion on this  ;)

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 12:41am:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 7th, 2014 at 11:55pm: ian wrote on Nov 7th, 2014 at 11:33pm: a lot of obviously guilty people get off. Anything that balances the scales a bit the other way is a good thing. So you consider innocent people being pronounced guilty balances the scales? . 99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway, the coppers know they have to bring the evidence to court before they have prospect of conviction.  Resources are limited and have to be allocated, its not even a case that every known crime is even going to be eventually prosecuted even though the perpetrators are known. Theres too much bias in court towards the rights of the accused also, theres an enormous amount of guilty people get off scott free compared to the extreme rarity of an innocent person being found guilty.

Are you serious?  Coppers bring anything they want to court in the expectation that it will be accepted without question - and it matters not one whit what the hard evidence is.

In any handling of law where the unsupported word of the accuser holds sway - 99% of those accused are innocent....

How can you say that many guilty get off scot free - when you yourself say they are 99% guilty? Do you imagine that all  such as yourself do not think the same?  And are not frightened of making a mistake and putting some beast out there again?  Or are not over-awed by the 'majesty' of the court where the judge/magistrate so obviously opposes the defendant and treats him with contempt - since the court does not sit there to work out guilt or innocence , but only to find out how much to take the poor bastard for and how fast it can be to find guilt?

SHOW ME?  You are mislead by propaganda and lies and television bullshit from America - the country with the highest rate of incarceration AND the highest rate of wrongful imprisonment.  SHOW ME one case where someone totally guilty has gotten off scot free!

SHOW ME, ian - ONE case you have sat on where you KNOW the defendant was guilty and got off - and tell me why and how.

Lay that case out here and now and SHOW ME the evidence.

Your lack of real experience is showing....

Do you seriously believe that everything a copper says is true?  10% of them suffer serious psychological and psychiatric issues - and many of those have an 'out' - claiming victimhood so as to ensure they get the 'mortgage buster' payout for stress etc when they have committed wrong themselves.

The Law demands PROOF - and proof is not some version of events unsupported by anything but what a fellow traveler says...

Once you allow that kind of evidence to hold sway - you just opened the door to the most virulent form of corruption imaginable.

Which of these 'guilty' people did you personally ever see do any of the things they were accused of?  How many times were you swayed by innuendo and attitude of prosecutors  and the deliberate placing of the accused in a guilty position in a dock etc, rather than PROVEN to the proper standard of fact?  How many times did you hear the same story from two police witnesses and assume they were telling the truth (a New Jersey Supreme court judge said that was proof of collusion).  How many times did you think "Oh - he looks a low-life after two days in the cells with the same clothes - he must be guilty"?  Or - "he wouldn't be here if he were not guilty"?  How many times have you heard a police officer say he/she was assaulted yet had not one iota of hard proof like bruise or uniform damage or even claim for injury to superiors or even ambulance or hospital staff at the time - and the defendant ended up in hospital?

You've sat on juries?  What possible evidence could tell you that 99% are guilty?  NOBODY is that good... and certainly no police force in this world is that good.. unless they are propped up by the most blatant prejudice, corruption and violence of dumb juries.

ive never sat on a jury. I  have been a witness for the prosecution many times Does this help you out Grappler?

A good boxer always beats a grappler  ;) they just dont have the reach

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 2:44am:

A good boxer always beats a grappler  ;) they just dont have the reach

Ouch - but out of those cases - how many got off?  None, right?

And was your evidence first hand?  Experience in courts should show you clearly that the quality of evidence is very, very poor in most cases, and is most often little more than a lot of assumptions put together to form the desired 'case'.

I actually developed the Grappler name from Shakespeare -

'Grapple your mind to sternage of this navy" - Henry V.

Also in regard to arguments with women - Jacob Grappled with an angel all night.... I could handle that...

Watching a 1 minute video is not the same thing as sitting in a criminal trial for a week or so. You are asking them to make a judgement without hearing the evidence. What else are they going to judge on?

So what've I been tellin' ya, Sol - evidence ain't evidence....  once you've seen a deliberate fit-up take place - you will never entertain the same easygoing view of jurisprudence again...

Speak again the next time you are handed a speeding ticket when you know you were not.... 

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 2:00am:

ive never sat on a jury. I  have been a witness for the prosecution many times Does this help you out Grappler?

You are obviously ex police and your opinion on this matter has huge bias.

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 12:41am:

99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway,

;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D

why bother with a legal system at all then? lets just leave it up to you to decide ..... afterall, look at you,  you don't even need to see the evidence and you already know they are guilty

:D :D :D :D :D

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 12:43am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 7th, 2014 at 11:57pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 7th, 2014 at 11:55pm: ian wrote on Nov 7th, 2014 at 11:33pm: a lot of obviously guilty people get off. Anything that balances the scales a bit the other way is a good thing. So you consider innocent people being pronounced guilty balances the scales? He just hung you by the balls, Ian.  You've earned my respect for some views.. this is not one, and rather a demonstration of naivety and the power of hearsay..  :) Ive sat through enough trials to have a reasoned opinion on this  ;)

Ohhh, weve just seen you express an opinion, there is nothing reasoned about it. Its comparable to the hysterical knee jerk cr@p in the Daily Telegraph and its scares of criminals under every bed and meanwhile our liberties are being progressively eroded because you allow emotion to overcome your good sense. 

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 2:00am:

ive never sat on a jury. I  have been a witness for the prosecution many times Does this help you out Grappler?

I think grappler he's telling you he's an ex copper (or worse still for our community, still a copper) which of coursae renders his opinion in these matters of little value for lack of objectivity.   

freediver wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 9:04am:

Watching a 1 minute video is not the same thing as sitting in a criminal trial for a week or so. You are asking them to make a judgement without hearing the evidence. What else are they going to judge on?

Incorrect ~ There were full mock Trials with the accused in three distinct positions, not just "Hey Jury.....is he guilty or not guilty" based solely on where the accused was positioned.  The only change in each Moot was the position of the accused......not sure about whether the Jury composition was changed.....that too would be a difficult control factor.

Grappler is correct.  There is no founded research which demonstrates that a guilty man was acquitted.  There cannot be.....what person found not guilty is going to walk out of the Court Room and pronounce....."I am guilty!"  Given the laws (which have been recently watered down) on double jeopardy, there is no point in pursuing, or further investigating the case an accused after an acquittal.

Ian......pretty silly dropping hints that you have some expertise on these matters if you are not willing to explain the basis for the claim so we can evaluate the credibility of what you say as a self anointed 'Guru.'

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 4:20pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 9:04am: Watching a 1 minute video is not the same thing as sitting in a criminal trial for a week or so. You are asking them to make a judgement without hearing the evidence. What else are they going to judge on? Incorrect ~ There were full mock Trials with the accused in three distinct positions, not just "Hey Jury.....is he guilty or not guilty" based solely on where the accused was positioned.  The only change in each Moot was the position of the accused......not sure about whether the Jury composition was changed.....that too would be a difficult control factor. Grappler is correct.  There is no founded research which demonstrates that a guilty man was acquitted.  There cannot be.....what person found not guilty is going to walk out of the Court Room and pronounce....."I am guilty!"  Given the laws (which have been recently watered down) on double jeopardy, there is no point in pursuing, or further investigating the case an accused after an acquittal. Ian......pretty silly dropping hints that you have some expertise on these matters if you are not willing to explain the basis for the claim so we can evaluate the credibility of what you say as a self anointed 'Guru.'

I never appointed myself a guru, neither did I claim expertise,  I will leave that up to you, merely pointing out when I was challenged as a person with no experience  that i do have  experience in these matters. Is your ego challenged? And you know damn well that the system is very biased towards the rights of the guilty so you can drop the act..

ive seen the same nonsense repeated that aboriginal people are much more likely to be incarcerated because they are aboriginal. Nonsense, probably less likely because they have access to legal resources the rest of us dont.

John Smith wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 12:44pm:

ian wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 12:41am: 99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway, ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D why bother with a legal system at all then? lets just leave it up to you to decide ..... afterall, look at you,  you don't even need to see the evidence and you already know they are guilty :D :D :D :D :D

actually Im basing my claim on seeing  the evidence. There are also a lot of crims who get nicked and convicted for crimes they didnt convict who turn around at the end of it, shrug their shoulders and say "oh well, Ive done plenty of stuff I have gotten away with so I probably deserve this one" very, very common and one of the reasons frustrated coppers sometimes fit up crims for crimes.

Quote:

a lot of obviously guilty people get off. Anything that balances the scales a bit the other way is a good thing.

Quote:

99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway, the coppers know they have to bring the evidence to court before they have prospect of conviction.  Resources are limited and have to be allocated, its not even a case that every known crime is even going to be eventually prosecuted even though the perpertrators are known. Theres too much bias in court towards the rights of the accused also, theres an enormous amount of guilty people get off scott free compared to the extreme rarity of an innocent person being found guilty.

Quote:

Ive sat through enough trials to have a reasoned opinion on this

Quote:

I  have been a witness for the prosecution many times Does this help you out Grappler?

Quote:

ive seen the same nonsense repeated that aboriginal people are much more likely to be incarcerated because they are aboriginal. Nonsense, probably less likely because they have access to legal resources the rest of us dont.

Quote:

actually Im basing my claim on seeing  the evidence. There are also a lot of crims who get nicked and convicted for crimes they didnt convict who turn around at the end of it, shrug their shoulders and say "oh well, Ive done plenty of stuff I have gotten away with so I probably deserve this one" very, very common and one of the reasons frustrated coppers sometimes fit up crims for crimes.

All that reads like someone claiming to have expertise/experience....yet you fail to explain what it is.

Ergo, self anointed Guru.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 1:15am:

Are you serious?  Coppers bring anything they want to court in the expectation that it will be accepted without question - and it matters not one whit what the hard evidence is.

Doesnt work that way, the prosecution has to prove guilt.   

Quote:

In any handling of law where the unsupported word of the accuser holds sway - 99% of those accused are innocent....

I would say there are certain crimes where this is likely to happen and others where it does not, sexual abuse cases for instance, not cut and dried at all and very hard to separate the emotion. Still the law s firmly in favour of the rights of the accused despite this, a clever lawyer can work wonders.



Quote:

SHOW ME?  You are mislead by propaganda and lies and television bullshit from America - the country with the highest rate of incarceration AND the highest rate of wrongful imprisonment.  SHOW ME one case where someone totally guilty has gotten off scot free!

Not at all, I dont even watch TV.


Quote:

SHOW ME, ian - ONE case you have sat on where you KNOW the defendant was guilty and got off - and tell me why and how. Lay that case out here and now and SHOW ME the evidence. Your lack of real experience is showing....

How can I do this? however let me think about it for a while.

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 6:05pm:

Quote: a lot of obviously guilty people get off. Anything that balances the scales a bit the other way is a good thing. [quote] 99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway, the coppers know they have to bring the evidence to court before they have prospect of conviction.  Resources are limited and have to be allocated, its not even a case that every known crime is even going to be eventually prosecuted even though the perpertrators are known. Theres too much bias in court towards the rights of the accused also, theres an enormous amount of guilty people get off scott free compared to the extreme rarity of an innocent person being found guilty.

Quote:

Ive sat through enough trials to have a reasoned opinion on this

Quote:

I  have been a witness for the prosecution many times Does this help you out Grappler?

Quote:

ive seen the same nonsense repeated that aboriginal people are much more likely to be incarcerated because they are aboriginal. Nonsense, probably less likely because they have access to legal resources the rest of us dont.

Quote:

actually Im basing my claim on seeing  the evidence. There are also a lot of crims who get nicked and convicted for crimes they didnt convict who turn around at the end of it, shrug their shoulders and say "oh well, Ive done plenty of stuff I have gotten away with so I probably deserve this one" very, very common and one of the reasons frustrated coppers sometimes fit up crims for crimes.

All that reads like someone claiming to have expertise/experience....yet you fail to explain what it is.

Ergo, self anointed Guru.[/quote]awww, your ego is challenged. isnt that cute. Despite this you will be getting very little personal information from me on an internet forum despite your obvious wish for it. way ahead of you pal  ;) Choose to or not to believe the experience I have claimed, up to you. Dont really care.

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 5:54pm:

ive seen the same nonsense repeated that aboriginal people are much more likely to be incarcerated because they are aboriginal. Nonsense, probably less likely because they have access to legal resources the rest of us dont.

if an abbo was in the dock I would have voted for life jail.

Quote:

awww, your ego is challenged. isnt that cute. Despite this you will be getting very little personal information from me on an internet forum despite your obvious wih for it. way ahead of you pal

You have made the offering of personal information, suggesting some expertise which establishes credibility to what to me are absurdly outrageuos claims.  Unless you can back up those assertions with some credentials worth taking note of, or some evidence, Members are entitled to conclude you are merely trolling.

The glass panels are to stop dead shi.ts throwing things at jurors, man handling court personnel and spitting. Let me guess, the do-gooders prefer that?

Rocketanski wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

The glass panels are to stop dead shi.ts throwing things at jurors, man handling court personnel and spitting. Let me guess, the do-gooders prefer that?

I don't think anyone has suggested that.

What was the purpose of the study then, kind sir?

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 12:44pm: ian wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 12:41am: 99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway, ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D why bother with a legal system at all then? lets just leave it up to you to decide ..... afterall, look at you,  you don't even need to see the evidence and you already know they are guilty :D :D :D :D :D actually Im basing my claim on seeing  the evidence. .

you've seen the evidence for 99% of the cases that have appeared in court ... boy, you must be a really busy boy .. how do you find time to chat on a forum?

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 6:14pm:

Quote: awww, your ego is challenged. isnt that cute. Despite this you will be getting very little personal information from me on an internet forum despite your obvious wih for it. way ahead of you pal You have made the offering of personal information, suggesting some expertise which establishes credibility to what to me are absurdly outrageuos claims.  Unless you can back up those assertions with some credentials worth taking note of, or some evidence, Members are entitled to conclude you are merely trolling.

grow up, I never reclaimed expertise. I claimed experience. Just because I dont offer my personal details on this forum does not mean I am trolling, so try your game and fragile ego on someone else.

John Smith wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:

ian wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 5:58pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 12:44pm: ian wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 12:41am: 99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway, ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D why bother with a legal system at all then? lets just leave it up to you to decide ..... afterall, look at you,  you don't even need to see the evidence and you already know they are guilty :D :D :D :D :D actually Im basing my claim on seeing  the evidence. . you've seen the evidence for 99% of the cases that have appeared in court ... boy, you must be a really busy boy .. how do you find time to chat on a forum?

you want to engage in semantics, for what reason?

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 7:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 7:11pm: ian wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 5:58pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 12:44pm: ian wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 12:41am: 99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway, ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D why bother with a legal system at all then? lets just leave it up to you to decide ..... afterall, look at you,  you don't even need to see the evidence and you already know they are guilty :D :D :D :D :D actually Im basing my claim on seeing  the evidence. . you've seen the evidence for 99% of the cases that have appeared in court ... boy, you must be a really busy boy .. how do you find time to chat on a forum? you want to engage in semantics, for what reason?

you are the one claiming 99% of those charged are guilty ... I simply want to know what you base that on

Have you seen the evidence showing they are guilty? or are you just making up crap again?

An innocent person can be convicted over a technicality. A guilty man can go free based on a technicality. I have heard of people getting convicted based on a misinterpretations of what was said, or a matter of the judge being casually satisfied that the prosecutor has proven a lie to be true.

John Smith wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 9:37pm:

ian wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 7:23pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 7:11pm: ian wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 5:58pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 12:44pm: ian wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 12:41am: 99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway, ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D why bother with a legal system at all then? lets just leave it up to you to decide ..... afterall, look at you,  you don't even need to see the evidence and you already know they are guilty :D :D :D :D :D actually Im basing my claim on seeing  the evidence. . you've seen the evidence for 99% of the cases that have appeared in court ... boy, you must be a really busy boy .. how do you find time to chat on a forum? you want to engage in semantics, for what reason? you are the one claiming 99% of those charged are guilty ... I simply want to know what you base that on Have you seen the evidence showing they are guilty? or are you just making up crap again?

I was making crap up. Some times I make an indefensible statement and try and defend it just for the hell of it, I do this mainly to p1ss off people like greggary and Aussie and it always works..  I still maintain however that the justice system is heavily biased in favor of the accused and I stand by my other comments. If people standing in a dock are much more likely to be convicted that doesnt necassarily mean that the innocent are getting found guilty, it could also mean simply that there is a higher rate of conviction of the guilty.

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 10:11pm:

An innocent person can be convicted over a technicality. A guilty man can go free based on a technicality. I have heard of people getting convicted based on a misinterpretations of what was said, or a matter of the judge being casually satisfied that the prosecutor has proven a lie to be true.

what sort of technicality are you talking about, give an example.

Quote:

I do this mainly to p1ss off people like greggary and Aussie and it always works..

Not trolling, ian?

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:04pm:

Quote: I do this mainly to p1ss off people like greggary and Aussie and it always works.. Not trolling, ian?

I prefer to call it manipulation of the clueless. If you spent your time  addressing the argument instead of the person you wouldnt  find yourself caught up so easily. See how I made you reply to my previous post?IRL I can make someone go from placid to a mind bending rage in about 10 seconds, its a very useful skill. Ive used it on lawyers too.

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:09pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 11:04pm: Quote: I do this mainly to p1ss off people like greggary and Aussie and it always works.. Not trolling, ian? I prefer to call it manipulation of the clueless. If you spent your time  addressing the argument instead of the person you wouldnt  find yourself caught up so easily. See how I made you reply to my previous post?IRL I can make someone go from placid to a mind bending rage in about 10 seconds, its a very useful skill. Ive used it on lawyers too.

That is a pretty good example/description of trolling.  That's okay.  We all learn.  I did take you at face value.  No longer.  I'll
now go look for my 'placid' but given I'm in such a state of 'mind bending rage,' I'm not confident.

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:15pm:

ian wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 11:09pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 11:04pm: Quote: I do this mainly to p1ss off people like greggary and Aussie and it always works.. Not trolling, ian? I prefer to call it manipulation of the clueless. If you spent your time  addressing the argument instead of the person you wouldnt  find yourself caught up so easily. See how I made you reply to my previous post?IRL I can make someone go from placid to a mind bending rage in about 10 seconds, its a very useful skill. Ive used it on lawyers too. That is a pretty good example/description of trolling.  That's okay.  We all learn.  I did take you at face value.  No longer.  I'll now go look for my 'placid' but given I'm in such a state of 'mind bending rage,' I'm not confident.

Address the argument and not the person and you wont have to take anyone at "face value"  , do you not understand this is the internet, I think anyone who posts too much personal information about themsleves is a clueless idiot. regardless, white flag accepted

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:17pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 11:15pm: ian wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 11:09pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 11:04pm: Quote: I do this mainly to p1ss off people like greggary and Aussie and it always works.. Not trolling, ian? I prefer to call it manipulation of the clueless. If you spent your time  addressing the argument instead of the person you wouldnt  find yourself caught up so easily. See how I made you reply to my previous post?IRL I can make someone go from placid to a mind bending rage in about 10 seconds, its a very useful skill. Ive used it on lawyers too. That is a pretty good example/description of trolling.  That's okay.  We all learn.  I did take you at face value.  No longer.  I'll now go look for my 'placid' but given I'm in such a state of 'mind bending rage,' I'm not confident. Address the argument and not the person and you wont have to take anyone at "face value"  , do you not understand this is the internet, I think anyone who posts too much personal information about themsleves is a clueless idiot. regardless, white flag accepted

It was you who was busy telling us of your personal information, and when asked for clarification, you lost your placid and went into mind bending rage.

Could you please recover quickly and express your 'argument' again this time distilling out all the trolling bits meant for the purposes of manipulation and rage induction.

There's a good chap.

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:02pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 10:11pm: An innocent person can be convicted over a technicality. A guilty man can go free based on a technicality. I have heard of people getting convicted based on a misinterpretations of what was said, or a matter of the judge being casually satisfied that the prosecutor has proven a lie to be true. what sort of technicality are you talking about, give an example.

If the defendant gets caught up muddling his words, and is interpreted as having said something to imply guilt. Or having agreed that the prosecutor might have made a fair point about him in assuming a hypothetical situation. Being naive, assuming that they can prove their innocence later.

1. Lawyer: Did you assault this woman?
Defendant: No, I have not.
Lawyer: The victim had bruises all over her face, and she accuses you of assaulting her.
Defendant (interjecting): Prove it.

2. Lawyer: The defendant said that you had said that you asked him to burn a home down. Using the words "burn homes down". Is that true?
Defendant: I have also said (lecturing the lawyer without actually answering the question. Then answers the question in the negative).

Both answers would implicate guilt of an innocent defendant. But I would like to look this up of different examples.

wouldnt call that  technicality and in my experience defendants arent verballed in court but given a lot of leeway as far as language difficulties go. Magistrates deal with barely or illiterate defendants all day long, thats the norm rather than the exception. You might not be aware but the public can sit in  on some court proceedings, might give you a bit of insight on how the system actually operates.

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:28pm:

ian wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 11:17pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 11:15pm: ian wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 11:09pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 11:04pm: Quote: I do this mainly to p1ss off people like greggary and Aussie and it always works.. Not trolling, ian? I prefer to call it manipulation of the clueless. If you spent your time  addressing the argument instead of the person you wouldnt  find yourself caught up so easily. See how I made you reply to my previous post?IRL I can make someone go from placid to a mind bending rage in about 10 seconds, its a very useful skill. Ive used it on lawyers too. That is a pretty good example/description of trolling.  That's okay.  We all learn.  I did take you at face value.  No longer.  I'll now go look for my 'placid' but given I'm in such a state of 'mind bending rage,' I'm not confident. Address the argument and not the person and you wont have to take anyone at "face value"  , do you not understand this is the internet, I think anyone who posts too much personal information about themsleves is a clueless idiot. regardless, white flag accepted It was you who was busy telling us of your personal information, and when asked for clarification, you lost your placid and went into mind bending rage. Could you please recover quickly and express your 'argument' again this time distilling out all the trolling bits meant for the purposes of manipulation and rage induction. There's a good chap.

I never get angry, you are confused.  you got your panties in a bunch because you couldnt twist any personal information out of me, way ahead of you there pal.  ;)

Quote:

Please post the personal information I supplied or be called a liar. either/ either.

Aussie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 6:05pm:

Quote: a lot of obviously guilty people get off. Anything that balances the scales a bit the other way is a good thing. [quote] 99 percent of people who appear in court are guilty anyway, the coppers know they have to bring the evidence to court before they have prospect of conviction.  Resources are limited and have to be allocated, its not even a case that every known crime is even going to be eventually prosecuted even though the perpertrators are known. Theres too much bias in court towards the rights of the accused also, theres an enormous amount of guilty people get off scott free compared to the extreme rarity of an innocent person being found guilty.

Quote:

Ive sat through enough trials to have a reasoned opinion on this

Quote:

I  have been a witness for the prosecution many times Does this help you out Grappler?

Quote:

ive seen the same nonsense repeated that aboriginal people are much more likely to be incarcerated because they are aboriginal. Nonsense, probably less likely because they have access to legal resources the rest of us dont.

Quote:

actually Im basing my claim on seeing  the evidence. There are also a lot of crims who get nicked and convicted for crimes they didnt convict who turn around at the end of it, shrug their shoulders and say "oh well, Ive done plenty of stuff I have gotten away with so I probably deserve this one" very, very common and one of the reasons frustrated coppers sometimes fit up crims for crimes.

All that reads like someone claiming to have expertise/experience....yet you fail to explain what it is.

Ergo, self anointed Guru.[/quote]



Already did that, ian.

still waiting for you to post personal information I have supplied rather than personal experiences. A lawyer would know the difference.

my next bet is Aussie resorts to semantics.

I'm still waiting for Aussie (sic) to explain go me what the study is about.

ian wrote on Nov 8^th, 2014 at 11:02pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 8th, 2014 at 10:11pm: An innocent person can be convicted over a technicality. A guilty man can go free based on a technicality. I have heard of people getting convicted based on a misinterpretations of what was said, or a matter of the judge being casually satisfied that the prosecutor has proven a lie to be true. what sort of technicality are you talking about, give an example.

There is a myth that people guilty get off on technicalities - a myth wrought by American television and movies... the reality is as I've stated many times:-

The US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, at 1 per 100 of the overall population - China is second with around one per two hundred (from memory now) and Australia is third at around one in five hundred or so (again memory).

Estimates on wrongful conviction run between one in a hundred from law persons to (wait for it) one in SIX based on information from defence lawyers etc and a study of the reasons many are convicted.

A good read - Ramsay updates and upgrades his dissertation, so the conclusions have varied over the years.

http://cech.uc.edu/content/dam/cech/programs/criminaljustice/docs/phd_dissertations/2003/RAMSEY-ROBERT-J.pdf

My view is simple - knowing full well that the primary reason for conviction by magistrates (as opposed to juries here) is an utter willingness to accept the 'version of events of police" - the false conviction rate here could be as high as 50%, and the primary role of the 'courts' is ans always has been a form of rigid and  violent social control (and of obtaining for itself the cash required, via for example traffic fines, to run itself!!) and NOT control of criminal behaviour.,

Again - my view is simple - we here in Australia are in desperate need of a full review of the magistracy and appellant judges and the way law is handled here - and  there is a dire need to bring Law back under the control of the Law by guaranteeing full Rights as laid down by Law for any before a court, and making an abrogation of a Right (such as the acceptance of a prosecution version of events over the defence which is to be accorded by Law every doubt and not the other way) is grounds for immediate dismissal on appeal.

(Been telling yez for years we live in a country run by criminals who have no real concept or value of Law, justice and fair play and whose only interest is retaining their own position of privilege)

ian wrote on Nov 9^th, 2014 at 12:36am:

wouldnt call that  technicality and in my experience defendants arent verballed in court but given a lot of leeway as far as language difficulties go. Magistrates deal with barely or illiterate defendants all day long, thats the norm rather than the exception. You might not be aware but the public can sit in  on some court proceedings, might give you a bit of insight on how the system actually operates.

The court judge will jump on anything that resembles accepting responsibility. He won't bother to accept any deviation from the rules of the courtroom, lest he be called accountable for lax discipline.

I had to deal with a judge who had an obstinate personality disorder, because he thought in terms of absolutes. There were no mitigating circumstances according to his interpretation of the law. One time, when I was called to court as a defendant, the court played a recording of a phone call I had received. When I found out that the court was playing a correct recording of what I said, I confirmed the accusation. The defence lawyer rolled his eyes in disbelief, and the judge promptly pronounced me "guilty" with no further delay.

I protested my innocence, and was offered a chance to 'redeem' myself. I made my point clear, including evidence that I had informed the police of the phone call, and that I had made sure an investigation was conducted. There were a few other things I said, claiming that my brief phone call was obviously sardonic, and it was taken out of context.

Imagine my anger when the judge chose not to reverse himself, and validated the guilty verdict against me. It took intervention by a politician, and a threat of disbarment, before the judge reversed his decision. When it was found out that the phone call was fraudulent, the judge relieved his mind of accountability and said I was completely innocent. The court case was later expunged.

So, I disagree with you about judges being lenient against the accused. Any slip ups in court, though they can be redeemed in further questioning, can be taken advantage of by the prosecution. You can go from completely innocent to guilty, simply through poor execution of your deposition.

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 10^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

ian wrote on Nov 9th, 2014 at 12:36am: wouldnt call that  technicality and in my experience defendants arent verballed in court but given a lot of leeway as far as language difficulties go. Magistrates deal with barely or illiterate defendants all day long, thats the norm rather than the exception. You might not be aware but the public can sit in  on some court proceedings, might give you a bit of insight on how the system actually operates. The court judge will jump on anything that resembles accepting responsibility. He won't bother to accept any deviation from the rules of the courtroom, lest he be called accountable for lax discipline. I had to deal with a judge who had an obstinate personality disorder, because he thought in terms of absolutes. There were no mitigating circumstances according to his interpretation of the law. One time, when I was called to court as a defendant, the court played a recording of a phone call I had received. When I found out that the court was playing a correct recording of what I said, I confirmed the accusation. The defence lawyer rolled his eyes in disbelief, and the judge promptly pronounced me "guilty" with no further delay. I protested my innocence, and was offered a chance to 'redeem' myself. I made my point clear, including evidence that I had informed the police of the phone call, and that I had made sure an investigation was conducted. There were a few other things I said, claiming that my brief phone call was obviously sardonic, and it was taken out of context. Imagine my anger when the judge chose not to reverse himself, and validated the guilty verdict against me. It took intervention by a politician, and a threat of disbarment, before the judge reversed his decision. When it was found out that the phone call was fraudulent, the judge relieved his mind of accountability and said I was completely innocent. The court case was later expunged. So, I disagree with you about judges being lenient against the accused. Any slip ups in court, though they can be redeemed in further questioning, can be taken advantage of by the prosecution. You can go from completely innocent to guilty, simply through poor execution of your deposition.

And the Nobel prize for fiction goes to .............

Well, then get f***ed, Rhino.

rhino wrote on Nov 10^th, 2014 at 11:17pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 10th, 2014 at 9:36pm: ian wrote on Nov 9th, 2014 at 12:36am: wouldnt call that  technicality and in my experience defendants arent verballed in court but given a lot of leeway as far as language difficulties go. Magistrates deal with barely or illiterate defendants all day long, thats the norm rather than the exception. You might not be aware but the public can sit in  on some court proceedings, might give you a bit of insight on how the system actually operates. The court judge will jump on anything that resembles accepting responsibility. He won't bother to accept any deviation from the rules of the courtroom, lest he be called accountable for lax discipline. I had to deal with a judge who had an obstinate personality disorder, because he thought in terms of absolutes. There were no mitigating circumstances according to his interpretation of the law. One time, when I was called to court as a defendant, the court played a recording of a phone call I had received. When I found out that the court was playing a correct recording of what I said, I confirmed the accusation. The defence lawyer rolled his eyes in disbelief, and the judge promptly pronounced me "guilty" with no further delay. I protested my innocence, and was offered a chance to 'redeem' myself. I made my point clear, including evidence that I had informed the police of the phone call, and that I had made sure an investigation was conducted. There were a few other things I said, claiming that my brief phone call was obviously sardonic, and it was taken out of context. Imagine my anger when the judge chose not to reverse himself, and validated the guilty verdict against me. It took intervention by a politician, and a threat of disbarment, before the judge reversed his decision. When it was found out that the phone call was fraudulent, the judge relieved his mind of accountability and said I was completely innocent. The court case was later expunged. So, I disagree with you about judges being lenient against the accused. Any slip ups in court, though they can be redeemed in further questioning, can be taken advantage of by the prosecution. You can go from completely innocent to guilty, simply through poor execution of your deposition. And the Nobel prize for fiction goes to .............

Cal me when you next court appearance comes along.... then we'll talk about law and jurisprudence, Rhino...

If you've ever seen the chicaneries that pass for evidence and jurisprudence, you will never doubt a story again.  I run Australia's Wrongfully Convicted and you would be amazed..... must be one hell of a lot of people out there intent on, for instance, getting a criminal record for assaulting police, something that can ruin your life, and not one shred of SUBSTANTIAL** corroborative evidence is ever produced.

You need a life....

You understand what is this Substantial?  It means solid stuff and not just what people say, i.e. I advocate that it be mandatory that any 'version of events' MUST be supported by substance or it cannot carry the day, and there is a dire need for this to be immediately brought into jurisprudence and Law.

That would instantly demolish countless 'cases' brought against ordinary citizens, but since it would chop State revenue and also cut down on the social control element of 'law' here, such a move is highly unlikely to happen with our current governments.

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 10^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

ian wrote on Nov 9th, 2014 at 12:36am: wouldnt call that  technicality and in my experience defendants arent verballed in court but given a lot of leeway as far as language difficulties go. Magistrates deal with barely or illiterate defendants all day long, thats the norm rather than the exception. You might not be aware but the public can sit in  on some court proceedings, might give you a bit of insight on how the system actually operates. The court judge will jump on anything that resembles accepting responsibility. He won't bother to accept any deviation from the rules of the courtroom, lest he be called accountable for lax discipline. I had to deal with a judge who had an obstinate personality disorder, because he thought in terms of absolutes. There were no mitigating circumstances according to his interpretation of the law. One time, when I was called to court as a defendant, the court played a recording of a phone call I had received. When I found out that the court was playing a correct recording of what I said, I confirmed the accusation. The defence lawyer rolled his eyes in disbelief, and the judge promptly pronounced me "guilty" with no further delay. I protested my innocence, and was offered a chance to 'redeem' myself. I made my point clear, including evidence that I had informed the police of the phone call, and that I had made sure an investigation was conducted. There were a few other things I said, claiming that my brief phone call was obviously sardonic, and it was taken out of context. Imagine my anger when the judge chose not to reverse himself, and validated the guilty verdict against me. It took intervention by a politician, and a threat of disbarment, before the judge reversed his decision. When it was found out that the phone call was fraudulent, the judge relieved his mind of accountability and said I was completely innocent. The court case was later expunged. So, I disagree with you about judges being lenient against the accused. Any slip ups in court, though they can be redeemed in further questioning, can be taken advantage of by the prosecution. You can go from completely innocent to guilty, simply through poor execution of your deposition.

I'ld believe that unsub.
In the court, the Judge rules.
They are very impressed with their own self importance.

NEVER EVER get on the bad side of a judge would be my advice.

Quote:

It means solid stuff and not just what people say, i.e. I advocate that it be mandatory that any 'version of events' MUST be supported by substance or it cannot carry the day, and there is a dire need for this to be immediately brought into jurisprudence and Law.

I agree with that concept.  It always amazed me, in circumstances when it all boiled down to just two versions of events, especially where one was a copper's ~ the other was the defendant's, and where there was an onus upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the copper's version could be 'preferred' and a conviction ensue in the complete absence of anything objective to support either version.

By what devine intervention was the Magistrate able to conclude that the copper was providing the truthful version?  Did they suddenly become gifted with a power of clear perception and lie detection capacity when they mounted the Bench, a power and capacity they were bereft of everywhere else?

Aussie wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

By what dvine intervention was the Magistrate able to conclude that the copper was providing the truthful version?  Did they suddenly become gifted with a power of clear perception and lie detection capacity when they mounted the Bench, a power and capacity they were bereft of everywhere else?

It wasn't the bench they mounted ;-)

Oh, and Aussie, you were asking about Ian's "expertise". It can be pretty easily be inferred from his earlier posts. What kind of person would regularly be appearing as a Crown witness? Assuming that ian isn't serially raped/beaten up, he must be a professional witness. He isn't clever enough to be any kind of scientific expert, which suggests a copper. This fits quite nicely with his demonstrated pro-State bias and his mentality.


Rocketanski wrote on Nov 9^th, 2014 at 7:00am:

I'm still waiting for Aussie (sic) to explain go [i]to me what the study is about.

Or you could just, you know, read it yourself. Since you're on this forum all day, you clearly have the time to. Only question is, will you comprehend it?

Aussie wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

By what divine intervention was the Magistrate able to conclude that the copper was providing the truthful version?  Did they suddenly become gifted with a power of clear perception and lie detection capacity when they mounted the Bench, a power and capacity they were bereft of everywhere else?

It wasn't the bench they mounted ;-)

Oh, and Aussie, you were asking about Ian's "expertise". It can be pretty easily be inferred from his earlier posts. What kind of person would regularly be appearing as a Crown witness? Assuming that ian isn't serially raped/beaten up, he must be a professional witness. He isn't clever enough to be any kind of scientific expert, which suggests a copper. This fits quite nicely with his demonstrated pro-State bias and his mentality.


Rocketanski wrote on Nov 9^th, 2014 at 7:00am:

I'm still waiting for Aussie (sic) to explain go to me what the study is about.

Or you could just, you know, read it yourself. Since you're on this forum all day, you clearly have the time to. Only question is, will you comprehend it?

Aussie wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

Quote: It means solid stuff and not just what people say, i.e. I advocate that it be mandatory that any 'version of events' MUST be supported by substance or it cannot carry the day, and there is a dire need for this to be immediately brought into jurisprudence and Law. I agree with that concept.  It always amazed me, in circumstances when it all boiled down to just two versions of events, especially where one was a copper's ~ the other was the defendant's, and where there was an onus upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the copper's version could be 'preferred' and a conviction ensue in the complete absence of anything objective to support either version. By what devine intervention was the Magistrate able to conclude that the copper was providing the truthful version?  Did they suddenly become gifted with a power of clear perception and lie detection capacity when they mounted the Bench, a power and capacity they were bereft of everywhere else?

they are the Judge.

Also, basically the cops and the Judges are on the same side.

So if you are a defendant in a court, you have a very powerful adversery against you.

Ian is tending towards the light side of the Force (sic) in his tenure here....  we've had our arguments but he is basically a reasonable person who perhaps has had a lop-sided 'education' in life....

I hold high hopes for his future as a thinking human being, though it is significant that his '99% are guilty' dovetails neatly with Ramsay Ph.D's dissertation and facts, where 'law enforcement' see only a 1% Wrongful Conviction rate... and stand alone there apart from judges who far too often see themselves as part of some 'thin blue line' - instead of the Thin Black Line of Law Itself as posited by none other  than Yours Truly....

BTW - Aussie - Law (capital L) also requires that any and all  benefit of doubt must go to the defence.  In the case of two differing versions of events and without substantial corroborating evidence, a dismissal is mandatory under Law - if not law.

The State/States is/are unlikely to adopt that mandated requirement of Law for the simple reason that it would immediately cut off 99% (sic - had to get that in) of traffic fines which make up 99% (sic) of the revenue required to actually run the courts and the police.

Such a blatant corrupt handling of Law and conflict of interest is in dire need of immediate euthanasia according to Law, and a massive re-education program for magistrates/judges is in order.

Wait until the bill comes in for repayment at today's rates, and restitution for all those wrongfully convicted in the past..... there is not enough cash in the tills... so I would suggest that the optimum course for legislators right now is to MAKE this Law Law as it should be - and remove from all held records all past events based on this wrongful mode of conviction.

Better now than later when the People Power movement comes into play and there is a demand for compensation to the aggrieved victims......

Quote:

BTW - Aussie - Law (capital L) also requires that any and all  benefit of doubt must go to the defence.  In the case of two differing versions of events and without substantial corroborating evidence, a dismissal is mandatory under Law - if not law.

Yeas, it is true that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must go to the accused/defendant.  That is just another way of saying that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Your second premise is idealistic and notional.  I have conducted thousands of cases both in front of a Magistrate and a Judge/Jury.  On many occasions, it all boils down to one person's word (usually a copper's) against another's (usually the defendant's/accused's.)  The Magistrate or Judge will mouth the mandatory words about guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence ~ and then, in the case of a Magistrate (no Jury) in the next breath, will state that "I 'prefer' the version of Officer Blog's over that of the defendant's, and accordingly I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant......."

Aussie wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 1:32pm:

Quote: BTW - Aussie - Law (capital L) also requires that any and all  benefit of doubt must go to the defence.  In the case of two differing versions of events and without substantial corroborating evidence, a dismissal is mandatory under Law - if not law. Yeas, it is true that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must go to the accused/defendant.  That is just another way of saying that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Your second premise is idealistic and notional.  I have conducted thousands of cases both in front of a Magistrate and a Judge/Jury.  On many occasions, it all boils down to one person's word (usually a copper's) against another's (usually the defendant's/accused's.)  The Magistrate or Judge will mouth the mandatory words about guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence ~ and then, in the case of a Magistrate (no Jury) in the next breath, will state that "I 'prefer' the version of Officer Blog's over that of the defendant's, and accordingly I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant......."

ha ha, never been in a  courtroom in your life. Some real fantasy lives being lived out on this forum.

rhino wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 1:37pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 11th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Quote: BTW - Aussie - Law (capital L) also requires that any and all  benefit of doubt must go to the defence.  In the case of two differing versions of events and without substantial corroborating evidence, a dismissal is mandatory under Law - if not law. Yeas, it is true that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must go to the accused/defendant.  That is just another way of saying that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Your second premise is idealistic and notional.  I have conducted thousands of cases both in front of a Magistrate and a Judge/Jury.  On many occasions, it all boils down to one person's word (usually a copper's) against another's (usually the defendant's/accused's.)  The Magistrate or Judge will mouth the mandatory words about guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence ~ and then, in the case of a Magistrate (no Jury) in the next breath, will state that "I 'prefer' the version of Officer Blog's over that of the defendant's, and accordingly I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant......." ha ha, never been in a  courtroom in your life. Some real fantasy lives being lived out on this forum.

Believe what you like, I could not care less.  I know ~ you can only speculate.

sure. Grapple was a top secret agent, Ian was a police detective you were a top lawyer, someone else was a psychologist, etc etc. This forum is full of basket cases liviing out their fantasies. Good for a laugh though.

rhino wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 2:25pm:

sure. Grapple was a top secret agent, Ian was a police detective you were a top lawyer, someone else was a psychologist, etc etc. This forum is full of basket cases liviing out their fantasies. Good for a laugh though.

I only know of my own back-ground which, by the way, I have never described as that of a 'top' Lawyer, and in that regard, the laugh, Elde Fruit, is entire on you.   Enjoy.  I am.

you were probably one of those people who sit in court and write everything down.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 10:45am:

I'ld believe that unsub. In the court, the Judge rules. They are very impressed with their own self importance. NEVER EVER get on the bad side of a judge would be my advice.

The problem being that the judge had assaulted me when I was 17 years old, whilst accosting me outside my place of work. He had some stupid grudge against me for some reason, that I probably won't be able to work out. He denies the allegation, in recent years, of course. But he has no problem trying to be my nemesis. I have a few judges that have no problem chastising me over petty issues.

rhino wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 1:37pm:

ha ha, never been in a  courtroom in your life. Some real fantasy lives being lived out on this forum.

I think we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that you have a superiority complex. Having never set foot in a courtroom, you have not the faintest idea of how court procedures work.

Aussie wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 1:32pm:

Quote: BTW - Aussie - Law (capital L) also requires that any and all  benefit of doubt must go to the defence.  In the case of two differing versions of events and without substantial corroborating evidence, a dismissal is mandatory under Law - if not law. Yeas, it is true that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must go to the accused/defendant.  That is just another way of saying that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Your second premise is idealistic and notional.  I have conducted thousands of cases both in front of a Magistrate and a Judge/Jury.  On many occasions, it all boils down to one person's word (usually a copper's) against another's (usually the defendant's/accused's.)  The Magistrate or Judge will mouth the mandatory words about guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence ~ and then, in the case of a Magistrate (no Jury) in the next breath, will state that "I 'prefer' the version of Officer Blog's over that of the defendant's, and accordingly I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant......."

Yes - absolutely agree.... seen that myself....  I was speaking of what needs to be done to get past this dreadful corruption in the magistracy that pollutes the legal system.

rhino wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 2:25pm:

sure. Grapple was a top secret agent, Ian was a police detective you were a top lawyer, someone else was a psychologist, etc etc. This forum is full of basket cases liviing out their fantasies. Good for a laugh though.

Wrong - I was interviewed for a job with that group and the AFP - that is the extent of it and is what I've stated repeatedly.

What are you - five years old?  Perhaps you could discuss some of the real and very serious issues here instead of being a school-kid troll.  Seems school is already out for some.

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 3:20pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 11th, 2014 at 10:45am: I'ld believe that unsub. In the court, the Judge rules. They are very impressed with their own self importance. NEVER EVER get on the bad side of a judge would be my advice. The problem being that the judge had assaulted me when I was 17 years old, whilst accosting me outside my place of work. He had some stupid grudge against me for some reason, that I probably won't be able to work out. He denies the allegation, in recent years, of course. But he has no problem trying to be my nemesis. I have a few judges that have no problem chastising me over petty issues.

That would be a REAL problem indeed !!
One I would have NO idea how to resolve.
Bad luck unsub

8-) 8-) :-?the names Bond, James Bond. Lol at the grapper :-X ::)

We got Arssie who thinks hes Rumpole of the Bailey :-* :-/ now we got one who thinks hes James Bond ;D :D :D :( >:(

Trained in the lethal art of origami   8-) ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D

rhino wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 10:04pm:

8-) 8-) :-?the names Bond, James Bond. Lol at the grapper :-X ::)

Funny thing is - they used to call me that when I worked at the airports......

You really are a five year old  :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.. best you get back on subject before the moderators catch up with you.... KID!

Oh - and BTW - speaking of Rumpole etc - I've established precedents in the courts in NSW with my learned exposition of simple legal fact to judges... truly a man for all seasons...... a multi-faceted man with multi-skills ability......

They spell Grappler with an L after the two p's.... and that's MR Arssie to you!

Grappler and Unsub - from my small exposure to the legal system it seems to be a system that mainly benefits lawyers and judges.

its very intimidating to an outsider, those in the dock stand prety much no chance of acquittal.
the judges almost put on a show of the procedure.

Is that a reasonable viewpoint of it all ??

grappler - what did the judges think when you pointed out a salient fact ?
How did you do it ??  ('.......... with all respect to the Honourable Judge ........')

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 12^th, 2014 at 9:04am:

rhino wrote on Nov 11th, 2014 at 10:04pm: 8-) 8-) :-?the names Bond, James Bond. Lol at the grapper :-X ::) Funny thing is - they used to call me that when I worked at the airports...... You really are a five year old  :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.. best you get back on subject before the moderators catch up with you.... KID! Oh - and BTW - speaking of Rumpole etc - I've established precedents in the courts in NSW with my learned exposition of simple legal fact to judges... truly a man for all seasons...... a multi-faceted man with multi-skills ability...... They spell Grappler with an L after the two p's.... and that's MR Arssie to you!

more like the Crappler   :D You should write  a book, theres always demand for qaulity ficton . Arsie can be your  rep in negotiatons.  We can just imagine. Talk about dinner for smucks ;D ;D

I write books too....

as for the rest - you are a very silly little man.... good day to you.