What lack of evidence? Individuals in this trial were released from it appears lack of evidence while others were not.

As already pointed out to you very correctly, a jury, having heard many hundreds of hours of arguments from both the proscecution and the defence have made a judgement based on the test of the "reasonable man" over seen by a judge that is there to assure fairness to the accused and as in the case of the dubious witness, advise the jury of such.

I would suggest that you have an axe to grind rather than being the final arbitior of objectivity that you see yourself. You keep mentioning the CD. What was on it? I mean there are child molestors that have been tried and convicted because of the possession of a CD. You have latched onto just a tiny part of what was obviously a exhaustive investigation. Please read again the thousands of hours of recorded information, hundreds of hours of survailance and the testimony of an undercover agent.

Circumstancial evidence IS legitimate evidence. It has to be of a high quality and quantity to replace things such as eye-witness accounts or a confession. It seems that CUMULATIVELY the circumstancial evidence achieved this to both the jury's and judge's satisfaction. Cumulatively it creates a picture.

jordan484 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2008 at 7:22am:


Off topic.
Actually abu has written "I'm not saying he's innocent, he might not be. ". Sure he is wrong to say "This is a new kind of legal precedant that applies only to Muslims I think" as convictions on circumstantial evidence are not new and were applied to many non Muslims but I've heard complaints about this convictions before and not only from Muslims either so it hardly warrants to say "he wants them to kill thousands of innocent infidels, that's what he has to believe and that's what his cult tells him to do." also I understand why using personalisation of debate by abu brings back such response.

On topic.
The pros and cons of convictions on circumstantial evidence are debatable indeed and, IMHO, should be discussed and argued on case to case basis and in this particular case it seems fair to me as all of many little facts point in the same direction.

Hahaha!

I like to eat the animal version.

tallowood,

Quote:


For Jordan that's the only way he's ever going to have anything against me. So let him go, if it makes him feel happy.

Quote:


According to our self-proclaimed free-speech-advocate, Jordan, they shouldn't be either discussed or argued. Be careful, or you might find yourself being labeled as a terrorist sympathiser too

Quote:


You're free to hold that opinion. I'm just glad you at least recognise the right of others to question the findings.

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning.

The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions (the immature, incompetent, or mentally ill), nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence[clarify], and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly," the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence. The same goes for tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain punitive damages.


abu_rashid wrote on Sep 18^th, 2008 at 10:00am:


I actually see it as an indicator that the system is probably working. Maybe those released are guilty or maybe innocent. But it would appear the quality of the evidence varied amongst the group.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 18^th, 2008 at 10:00am:


I would suggest that being a Muslim and being objective are not mutually exclusive. My allegiance to anyone is never blindingly automatic, with the possible exception of small children in my care. It may be getting easier to accuse but I doubt it is getting easier to convict. Of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in this country how many are being accused? Our justice system IS a lynch-pin of our society. If I thought that, at court level there was a political agenda I would say so. And protest in the strongest way I was able. It should be a haven of fairness for ALL Australians.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 18^th, 2008 at 10:00am:


Yes there was a witness that the jury were WARNED about, but there were certainly other witnesses. The undercover agent for one as well as the accused. I don't know the details of what came to light from their testimonies. The article suggested that at least one man was very keen to learn the process and aquire explosive material. I am glad that the undercover agent fell short of actually teaching that.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 18^th, 2008 at 10:00am:


I don't believe that this is a case of entrapment where unwilling parties are coerced into committing illegal actions, that includes plotting to commit murder. One individual had a door opened for him and he eagerly walked through it. Maybe some of the others that were aquitted drew a line at that point. They may have been prepared to commit acts of civil disobedience or activist protest but nothing criminal. Or maybe some of the aquitted were entrapped as far as the jury was concerned and released on that basis.

I do hope that more information comes to light than only through the popular media. I would like to know the details of the CD. If it contains information on bomb construction etc, then it should probably not be published. I assume that the judge and the jury were however privy to the contents otherwise it could not have been used as evidence.