Brandon Smith

[Captain Apollo]

No. If Smith can be charged based purely on phone and text records, then so can the guy mentioned that it was allegedly meant for. Both can defend that in court. The charge of supply is entirely exaggerated. At worst, it was an introduction. You can't supply something if you weren't even in the state.

Smith's text said it was for Radley? That's the very legal definition of hearsay. Text messages and or voice calls from Smith seeking drugs is not hearsay, its direct evidence unless Smith's phone was knowingly being used by someone else. I suggest you go back to your legal studies dude.

 

[speedster]

I mean that's a wild take, you get that right?

Smith contacted a drug dealer (according to the reports) asking for drugs to supposedly supply to others.

Plodley was (according to reports) named in the text(s) Smith sent.

Both things might be completely untrue but on the info reported, I think you have the names backwards in your last sentence

Nup. Where does it state that he explicitly asked for drugs? Would he even need to? More likely he just said he had a mate who wants to pop over for a visit that you may have heard of.

The charge of supply has been cooked up here. If Smith can have cooked up charges for introing a mate, then so can the mate since it was the mate that was allegedly doing the doing. The dealer did the supplying.

 

[speedster]

Smith's text said it was for Radley? That's the very legal definition of hearsay. Text messages and or voice calls from Smith seeking drugs is not hearsay, its direct evidence unless Smith's phone was knowingly being used by someone else. I suggest you go back to your legal studies dude.

And you have this evidence at your finger tips how dude? Please.

And only talking about charges here, not prosecuting the case at this stage. You seem to be muddling those 2 things up and defending against prosecution.

 

[Captain Apollo]

And you have this evidence at your finger tips how dude? Please.

I know enough about the principles of evidence in a criminal trial in terms of what is and isn't hearsay.

Edit;

Also we are all going by what's in the media reports. If you think the media had any evidence regarding possible criminal actions by Radley they wouldn't have mentioned it by now? Fact is they have all been studiously stressing that there isn't even an implication of Radley doing anything of a criminal nature, only that he was mentioned as being who the drugs were supposedly for.

Don't like it? Take it up with Qld Police and the Qld Director of Public Prosecutions.

 

[speedster]

What evidence is there that he attempted to possess it?

I could contact a drug dealer and tell them it is for the King of England. It means f**k all unless they have evidence of said 3rd party asking for it.

Being charged doesn't mean you're guilty. But if they can trump up charges on Smith, they can also do likewise for Rads - if they want to.

 

[speedster]

I know enough about the principles of evidence in a criminal trial in terms of what is and isn't hearsay.

Edit;

Also we are all going by what's in the media reports. If you think the media had any evidence regarding possible criminal actions by Radley they wouldn't have mentioned it by now? Fact is they have all been studiously stressing that there isn't even an implication of Radley doing anything of a criminal nature, only that he was mentioned as being who the drugs were supposedly for.

Don't like it? Take it up with Qld Police and the Qld Director of Public Prosecutions.

And only talking about charges here, not prosecuting the case at this stage. You seem to be muddling those 2 things up and defending against prosecution.

 

[Bazal]

Nup. Where does it state that he explicitly asked for drugs? Would he even need to? More likely he just said he had a mate who wants to pop over for a visit that you may have heard of.

The charge of supply has been cooked up here. If Smith can have cooked up charges for introing a mate, then so can the mate since it was the mate that was allegedly doing the doing. The dealer did the supplying.

So the root of the issue is you're pissed they've apparently cooked up charges against the current Rabbitoh but not the current Rooster

Like mate you even admit it would be cooking up a charge against Radley I'm just not seeing the angle here

 

[Captain Apollo]

I have no idea about Smith's guilt or otherwise. That's for a court to decide based on evidence presented by the crown prosecutor. Until a court finds otherwise, Smith's entitled to be presumed not guilty.

Also a charge has to be based on reasonable evidence, and basing such a charge solely third party's text message with Radley's name mentioned in it would be insufficient. A judge would laugh it out of court based on what we know.

 

[speedster]

So the root of the issue is you're pissed they've apparently cooked up charges against the current Rabbitoh but not the current Rooster

Like mate you even admit it would be cooking up a charge against Radley I'm just not seeing the angle here

No! Total opposite! FMD how twisted do things get sometimes?

I feel neither should be charged based on flimsy nothing evidence. That's my first point and it has nothing to do with who they play for! I am sensing perhaps some people are feeling a little butt hurt about my suggestion that a player from their club is in anyway at fault - lol - and going into full on CSI mode but whatever.

All I've said though is if anyone should be charged, hypothetically, it's the person allegedly scoring the gear and not the bloke doing the intro regardless of the colour of their shirt or size of their appendage or whatever else your preference is. Hey, each to their own.

 

[speedster]

I have no idea about Smith's guilt or otherwise. That's for a court to decide based on evidence presented by the crown prosecutor. Until a court finds otherwise, Smith's entitled to be presumed not guilty.

Also a charge has to be based on reasonable evidence, and basing such a charge solely third party's text message with Radley's name mentioned in it would be insufficient. A judge would laugh it out of court based on what we know.

May be so yet there is a lack of reasonable evidence for Smith's charge and cops charge people willy nilly all the time. All I've meant is it's the alleged buyer who deserves the charge more than the mate just trying to do him a solid and if Smith is charged, then it defies logic that Rads isn't also.

 

[Captain Apollo]

May be so yet there is a lack of reasonable evidence for Smith's charge and cops charge people willy nilly all the time. All I've meant is it's the alleged buyer who deserves the charge more than the mate just trying to do him a solid and if Smith is charged, then it defies logic that Rads isn't also.

Says who? The media are reporting text that the request was in text messages from Smith? That is reasonable evidence by any legal definition as the text messages which the media have mentioned were either sent from Smith's mobile phone or from one of Smith's direct messaging accounts (e.g. WhatsApp).

You do not seem to understand the difference and want to look at it thru a prism of "conspiracy theory" which is complete b/s. Radley was mentioned by a third party (purportedly Brandon Smith) as who the drugs were for. As such that is not reasonable evidence, its "hear say" evidence unless corroborated by another source. as such it is not reasonable evidence in any Australian court with which to charge Radley.

 

[Valheru]

No. If Smith can be charged based purely on phone and text records, then so can the guy mentioned that it was allegedly meant for. Both can defend that in court. The charge of supply is entirely exaggerated. At worst, it was an introduction. You can't supply something if you weren't even in the state.

You have the wrong end of the stick here.

I assume the evidence against Smith involves his phone/phone number so one could reasonably attribute any message on there to being sent by him and/or addressed to him.

A 3rd party being mentioned in a text is an entirely different thing.

 

[speedster]

Says who? The media are reporting text that the request was in text messages from Smith? That is reasonable evidence by any legal definition as the text messages which the media have mentioned were either sent from Smith's mobile phone or from one of Smith's direct messaging accounts (e.g. WhatsApp).

You do not seem to understand the difference and want to look at it thru a prism of "conspiracy theory" which is complete b/s. Radley was mentioned by a third party (purportedly Brandon Smith) as who the drugs were for. As such that is not reasonable evidence, its "hear say" evidence unless corroborated by another source. as such it is not reasonable evidence in any Australian court with which to charge Radley.

You don't know what the texts actually say - just that they mention Radley. Please. Stop banging on and on about it. Lets wait until we all know more. For now, your choirboy is safe.

 

[speedster]

You have the wrong end of the stick here.

I assume the evidence against Smith involves his phone/phone number so one could reasonably attribute any message on there to being sent by him and/or addressed to him.

A 3rd party being mentioned in a text is an entirely different thing.

You don't know what the texts actually say - just that they mention Radley. Please. Stop banging on and on about it. Lets wait until we all know more. For now, your choirboy is safe.

 

[Chimp]

You have the wrong end of the stick here.

I assume the evidence against Smith involves his phone/phone number so one could reasonably attribute any message on there to being sent by him and/or addressed to him.

A 3rd party being mentioned in a text is an entirely different thing.

Given the Police have said how co-operative Smith was, I think it’s more likely they’ve got Radleys name as the intended recipient from messages on Smiths phone between Radley and Smith and/or directly from questioning Smith - so I’d say it’s a bit more than just hearsay.
They’re charging Smith with supply, which would suggest they believe they have evidence of Smith facilitating a delivery from the dealer to a recipient other than Smith himself. If they’ve got enough evidence to charge Smith on supply, then that would also suggest they have enough evidence to charge the recipient. I suspect the truth is though, they know the charge on Smith is flimsy at best and unlikely to lead to a conviction, which makes it pointless charging the recipient as it’s a much lower crime in the pecking order. From the information released so far, it certainly would appear to be a ‘shaking the tree’ exercise from the Police. Neither Smith or Radley are really of any interest to them, other than hopefully being able to leverage Smith.

 

[speedster]

As for how the NRL deal with this post all the legal shit, I imagine both players should cop some sort of suspension for bringing the game into disrepute.

As for how each club handles it, Smith should cop a final warning whereas, with Rads? How will Uncle Nick spin this given his publicly stated zero tolerance stance on drugs?

I'm getting the popcorn ready ...

 

[Captain Apollo]

You don't know what the texts actually say - just that they mention Radley. Please. Stop banging on and on about it. Lets wait until we all know more. For now, your choirboy is safe.

Yes its all about because he's a Rooster Frak you are a stupid, one eyed merkin. No point talking to you about anything. My mother always said "don't argue with idiots".

 

[Vlad59]

You don't know what the texts actually say - just that they mention Radley. Please. Stop banging on and on about it. Lets wait until we all know more. For now, your choirboy is safe.

I’d stop if I were you. You don’t seem to have any grasp of fundamental principles of evidence and law.

 

[Valheru]

As for how the NRL deal with this post all the legal shit, I imagine both players should cop some sort of suspension for bringing the game into disrepute.

As for how each club handles it, Smith should cop a final warning whereas, with Rads? How will Uncle Nick spin this given his publicly stated zero tolerance stance on drugs?

I'm getting the popcorn ready ...

You are going to be bitterly disappointed

 

[BadnMean]

I have no idea about Smith's guilt or otherwise. That's for a court to decide based on evidence presented by the crown prosecutor. Until a court finds otherwise, Smith's entitled to be presumed not guilty.

Also a charge has to be based on reasonable evidence, and basing such a charge solely third party's text message with Radley's name mentioned in it would be insufficient. A judge would laugh it out of court based on what we know.

Reading between the lines a mid level dealer has been caught and has flipped a bunch of end user and "pass it on" users so they have a direct firsthand testimony from that party and then the texts are supporting evidence. *maybe more?)

It was probably still very flimsy on the Cheese until he co-operated.