What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

2021 Rabbitohs Rumours, Signings And News

BotanyBorn&Bred

Juniors
Messages
2,245
All of that is accurate. However it does not mean that Sam is innocent.
In the eyes of the law, and this court, yes it does mean Sam is innocent.
He has had his conviction overturned. The original trial judge erred and his ruling was overturned.
And that is the only thing that counts.

Since when is hearsay by one party without any witnesses admissible and irrefutable evidence, whille simultaneously dismissing the other party's testimony?
 
Last edited:

Souths Till I Die

First Grade
Messages
6,041
How would people feel with DCE in a Souths jumper?

I think DCE is a very good player but:
1. I want to keep Reynolds and see him finish his career at Souths.
2. I cant see DCE wanting to come to Souths when manly are pretty much throwing their salary cap at him.

If for some reason we couldn't resign Reynolds and DCE reduced his asking price then I would happily take him.

Manly in my opinion have one of the best attacking structure in the game when they're on and its all controlled by DCE. Unfortunately they spend most of their time defending their line. I could see him becoming a real weapon playing around Mitchell, Walker and Cook.

He also loves to run the ball which we don't really see Reynolds do much.
 

assess5

Juniors
Messages
427
In the eyes of the law, and this court, yes it does mean Sam is innocent.
He has had his conviction overturned. The original trial judge erred and his ruling was overturned.
And that is the only thing that counts.

Since when is hearsay by one party without any witnesses admissible and irrefutable evidence, whille simultaneously dismissing the other party's testimony?

Sam is not 'innocent', who is innocent.
Sam had the conviction overturned so Sam is 'not guilty' of the charges alleged.

I think George Pell is still guilty of the offences he was charged with, he may be currently on the sex offender list. I'm not sure but I think the high court dismissed the charges on a different technicality, does any body else know for sure?

I'd much rather keep Reynolds, I wouldn't want DCE, or any other Manly reject/has been. Been done before and failed miserably.
 

BotanyBorn&Bred

Juniors
Messages
2,245
Sam is not 'innocent', who is innocent.
Sam had the conviction overturned so Sam is 'not guilty' of the charges alleged.

I think George Pell is still guilty of the offences he was charged with, he may be currently on the sex offender list. I'm not sure but I think the high court dismissed the charges on a different technicality, does any body else know for sure?

I'd much rather keep Reynolds, I wouldn't want DCE, or any other Manly reject/has been. Been done before and failed miserably.
Wrong

http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2020/12.html

In their judgment, the judges said with respect to all five charges that, "Making full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, there is a significant possibility ... that an innocent person has been convicted."
 

Travitoh

First Grade
Messages
5,186
The quote in full.

For the reasons to be given, it is evident that there is "a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof"

It doesn't actually say anything about Pell proving his innocence, only that "evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof"
 

assess5

Juniors
Messages
427
The quote in full.



It doesn't actually say anything about Pell proving his innocence, only that "evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof"



Ok, doesn't matter, I'm wrong, let it be known I wasn't anti Sam Burgess in anyway at all. I sure am anti Pell.

lets get back to the football.
 

BotanyBorn&Bred

Juniors
Messages
2,245
The quote in full.



It doesn't actually say anything about Pell proving his innocence, only that "evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof"
Mate this ain't Nicaragua.
What part of this do you not understand?
Not guilty = Innocent.

How about I make up shit about you, go to my friends at the cops, tell them a big story about what you did, ring up the media to put out that story, you get arrested and charged, and hauled before the court where the judge is my family friend, make up more lies about you, and no matter what you say, BANG! You are guilty.

If you are good with this, accept your guilt and quit crying
 

BotanyBorn&Bred

Juniors
Messages
2,245
The quote in full.



It doesn't actually say anything about Pell proving his innocence, only that "evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof"
Mate I think you do belong in Nicaragua.

Since when in Australia, or any Westminster system of government or Roman- based law, is the onus of proof on the accused to prove their innocence?

FFS

QAnon lives in Australia......
 

assess5

Juniors
Messages
427
[
Mate this ain't Nicaragua.
What part of this do you not understand?
Not guilty = Innocent.

How about I make up shit about you, go to my friends at the cops, tell them a big story about what you did, ring up the media to put out that story, you get arrested and charged, and hauled before the court where the judge is my family friend, make up more lies about you, and no matter what you say, BANG! You are guilty.

If you are good with this, accept your guilt and quit crying
I know I will regret this but, Not Guilty has absolutely nothing to do with 'Innocent' or 'Innocence"
 

handyman2190

Bench
Messages
3,832
[

I know I will regret this but, Not Guilty has absolutely nothing to do with 'Innocent' or 'Innocence"

I know ill regret this but,
Guilty, youve done something wrong.
Innocent youve done nothing wrong.
Guilty must be proven, in this country your innocent until proven guilty, there are no half ways in this, and this is where many stuff up and forget the laws of the land.
Take this rape thing going on in the last few weeks, many ASSUME he is guilty and want blood, committees meetings to make out and guess his fit for his role, the police, the department responsible for investigating and determining fault or guilt then trying and proving the allegation have said there is no case to answer, after 33 years you would have thought there was enough time to determine and prosecute, but no allegation, complaint was made, and now after the death of the suposed victim, a witch hunt occurs, were the integrity and livlihood of the accused is jeperdised, perhaps for ever, is instigated by people with no hope,knowledge, or careing of the truth, just vindictivness.
Its wrong that stigma lingers and sometimes never leaves.
And people suffer.
Opinions have nothing to do with the law, with actual guilt or innocence.
Its innocent until proven, not until opinion crucifise you.
Eg, a female cries foul, immediately and in most cases, the accused is guilty and has to prove innocense, and the stigma almost never leaves, this is totally wrong.
This is similar to what sam is going through, even though he is innocent,many still are debating about it. I wish it would just stop!
Sorry to bore u all.
 

Latest posts

Top