News JDB Trial

[Last Week]

spot the FODWAWIPs.

Troll harder.

 

[Billythekid]

We need some women in this thread.

Forum more like. This place is a cesspool and the sausage party is a big reason why.

 

[lynx000]

Well I have issue with our justice system.

I have no opinion on the case.

But it takes two years for a person to seek justice, then cannot reach verdict, ok, but 8 months to be heard again?

Australia needs to do better than to leave people waiting 3 years for a verdict.

Hire more Judges, not sure, but three years is just not correct.

It has been complicated further by Covid this year old mate. They had to can jury trials for some months and so that has caused a backlog everywhere. It is bad, but not usually this bad.

 

[lynx000]

Just a thought, do they not record all of it?

Should they all have to testify again? Seems mean on both sides.

Can we not in this day, just show that to a new jury, with all of the evidence?

No, and there are several reasons for that.

 

[lynx000]

That is what makes it a waste of time, money and resources. If a matter is going to jump the line and hold everybody elses day in court up then we should be allowed to know the jury count. If its 10-2 then I demand they drop it.

You are not allowed to know, it is an offence for any member of the jury to reveal their deliberations.

 

[some11]

This thread's a f**ken dumpster fire.

Maybe jordan 'psychiatrist who despite his infinite wisdom got addicted to klonopin and decided to put himself into a coma in russia' peterson can fix it

 

[Quicksilver]

This thread's a f**ken dumpster fire.

Maybe jordan 'psychiatrist who despite his infinite wisdom got addicted to klonopin and decided to put himself into a coma in russia' peterson can fix it

sounds like cultural Marxism

 

[Mr Angry]

No, and there are several reasons for that.

Please do tell, why must these people be subjected to be on the stand again?

Why is the tape not good enough?

They had thier say it was recorded.

I have not seen it, nor do I want to, but you seem to suggest they need to do it all again, three years later.

I think it is wrong.

 

[AJB1102]

Please do tell, why must these people be subjected to be on the stand again?

Why is the tape not good enough?

They had thier say it was recorded.

I have not seen it, nor do I want to, but you seem to suggest they need to do it all again, three years later.

I think it is wrong.

Not just that but their second testimony wont be as raw as the first and convey the same emotion, I wouldn't think. Not to say it wouldn't still be difficult/emotional/traumatic but it'll be different. They'll be more aware of whats coming and maybe their answers wont carry the weight they did saying it the first time in front of a courtroom.

For example in Jarryd Hayne's trial the woman broke down and called him a f**king piece of shit. I imagine she's less likely to display that same level of raw emotion the more she goes through this. Who - if anyone - this benefits I don't know.

 

[lynx000]

Please do tell, why must these people be subjected to be on the stand again?

Why is the tape not good enough?

They had thier say it was recorded.

I have not seen it, nor do I want to, but you seem to suggest they need to do it all again, three years later.

I think it is wrong.

1. The very essence of a jury trial is an assessment of each of the witnesses, their credibility, their body language, their facial expressions, nuances in the manner that they answer, intonation of their voices, all of this is best assessed by viewing the evidence being given live. Video is a poor substitute (in my opinion). I can see the reasoning in allowing the accused's evidence to be by video to avoid the victim having to go through the trauma of giving evidence twice.
2. You are binding all of the parties to running exactly the same case that they ran in the first trial which is prejudicial to all of the parties.
3. The legal representatives for the Crown and the two accused might well want to change their trial tactics, they might want to ask additional questions, avoid questions that harmed their case in the first hearing. None of this can be done if they are limited to the replay of the evidence from the first hearing.

Is that enough for you, or would you like some more?

 

[Captain Apollo]

1. The very essence of a jury trial is an assessment of each of the witnesses, their credibility, their body language, their facial expressions, nuances in the manner that they answer, intonation of their voices, all of this is best assessed by viewing the evidence being given live. Video is a poor substitute (in my opinion). I can see the reasoning in allowing the accused's evidence to be by video to avoid the victim having to go through the trauma of giving evidence twice.
2. You are binding all of the parties to running exactly the same case that they ran in the first trial which is prejudicial to all of the parties.
3. The legal representatives for the Crown and the two accused might well want to change their trial tactics, they might want to ask additional questions, avoid questions that harmed their case in the first hearing. None of this can be done if they are limited to the replay of the evidence from the first hearing.

Is that enough for you, or would you like some more?

The person who does not have to re-give their testimony is the alleged victim, no one else. That decision in NSW was made by the parliament after much deliberation and due consideration nearly a decade ago. The initiative was driven by the 'representatives" of the crown to ease the emotional burden and trauma on the alleged victim. So please stop raising it. This was considered by the NSW Law Reform Commission, and at the highest levels of Government, and substantive debate in the NSW Parliament. It will not be changing in the forseeable future.

 

[The_Frog]

coming from Penrith she would probably already have a few kids in tow before she's old enough to visit a nightclub.

Inaccurate on several counts, but not bad nonetheless.

 

[lynx000]

The person who does not have to re-give their testimony is the alleged victim, no one else. That decision in NSW was made by the parliament after much deliberation and due consideration nearly a decade ago. The initiative was driven by the 'representatives" of the crown to ease the emotional burden and trauma on the alleged victim. So please stop raising it. This was considered by the NSW Law Reform Commission, and at the highest levels of Government, and substantive debate in the NSW Parliament. It will not be changing in the forseeable future.

I am entirely aware of that, you will see I was responding to a question from Mr Angry, please read my response and his question before attacking me.

If you had of read my response properly you would have seen that I said:
` I can see the reasoning in allowing the accused's evidence to be by video to avoid the victim having to go through the trauma of giving evidence twice.'

So please shove your response where the sun does not shine. Thank you.

 

[T-Boon]

The person who does not have to re-give their testimony is the alleged victim, no one else.

Obviously the defendant does not need to re-give their evidence as they are not obliged to give evidence at all.
Are you saying they cannot rely on the tape of their evidence from the first trial? That would be interesting and complete stupidity.

 

[The_Frog]

He should be allowed to go to England to play.

Apart from having to front court in Australia, do you really think the Super League would want him at the present time?

 

[T-Boon]

Apart from having to front court in Australia, do you really think the Super League would want him at the present time?

Valid point. I am not sure.
Clubs would want him but probably the governing body would take some convincing. The other big problem would be would England allow him entry - I gues they would as he doesnt have any convictions?
I think he should be allowed to play lower grades here or something. There needs to be consideration of the fact he is considered innocent until proven guilty and that the most likely outcome next time is another hung jury. I agree with Peter Fitzsimmons - he cannot be in the NRL. But somewhere where he can stay sane and work on his game a bit.

 

[Captain Apollo]

I am entirely aware of that, you will see I was responding to a question from Mr Angry, please read my response and his question before attacking me.

If you had of read my response properly you would have seen that I said:
` I can see the reasoning in allowing the accused's evidence to be by video to avoid the victim having to go through the trauma of giving evidence twice.'

So please shove your response where the sun does not shine. Thank you.

Well I was going to apologise, until I saw your last line as I musnderstopod your post. However since that is your attiutude, go fornicate with animals douchebag!

 

[lynx000]

Well I was going to apologise, until I saw your last line as I musnderstopod your post. However since that is your attiutude, go fornicate with animals douchebag!

My apologies, it has been a shitty week and I should not have reacted the way I did.

 

[Diesel]

Does the no fault allow any player play in the QLD/NSW Cup?

 

[soc123_au]

Not a good few years for Jack. Rust of the balls apparently.

https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/dragon...l-battle/e093308e-3302-48be-9cba-24b5a00039da