Australian Politics Forum - Jurors think docks mean guilt: research

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39466
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #60 - 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......."

Back to top

IP Logged

rhino

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17179
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #61 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 1:37pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39466
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #62 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 1:39pm

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

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.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

rhino Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17179 Gender:	Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research Reply #63 - 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39466
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #64 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 2:29pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

rhino Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17179 Gender:	Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research Reply #65 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 2:31pm you were probably one of those people who sit in court and write everything down.
Back to top	IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Crocodile Hunter: Origins

Posts: 25090
Rockhampton
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #66 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 3:20pm

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.

Back to top

At this stage...

IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Crocodile Hunter: Origins

Posts: 25090
Rockhampton
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #67 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 3:23pm

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.

Back to top

At this stage...

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88750
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #68 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 4:10pm

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.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88750
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #69 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 9:28pm

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.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 41065
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #70 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 10:03pm

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

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.

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

Back to top

Modern Classic Right Wing

IP Logged

rhino Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17179 Gender:	Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research Reply #71 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 10:04pm the names Bond, James Bond. Lol at the grapper
Back to top	IP Logged

rhino Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17179 Gender:	Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research Reply #72 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 10:09pm We got Arssie who thinks hes Rumpole of the Bailey now we got one who thinks hes James Bond
Back to top	IP Logged

rhino Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17179 Gender:	Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research Reply #73 - Nov 11^th, 2014 at 10:12pm Trained in the lethal art of origami
Back to top	IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88750
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Jurors think docks mean guilt: research
Reply #74 - Nov 12^th, 2014 at 9:04am

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

the names Bond, James Bond. Lol at the grapper Lips Sealed

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

You really are a five year old Cheesy

.. 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!

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 12^th, 2014 at 9:12am by Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM »

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged