Greg Bird charged with violent attack

[millersnose]

No I wasnt cheerleading Sam on,

lol

i could hear the slurping from perth

but I appreciate his points.

obviously

though they have been wrong

If Sam is guilty of anything, its trying to add some informed opinion into the debate.

informed lol and horrendously wrong

The police are not sacred cows, if you think they are, you dont know too many or have much to do with them. They get it wrong all the time. They are human and thats how it goes.

who said police dont sometimes get it wrong

though if you are speaking about a specific case, like you guys did with this one, you must point out specifically what they did wrong with proof

neither of you did

you just bagged guys who had to do a difficult job

As for Bird and his legal team, well they did an outstanding job of the case didnt they?

for all i know his legal team did the best they were able to do given the circumstances

and the circumstances were conducive to a prison sentence

i doubt many legal teams could save bird from a stretch

perhaps you and samshrk could volunteer to be birdies legal team and avoid the mistakes you claim his team have made and maybe get him off altogether

Your abusive tone and overall negativity suggests you have some real issues of your own to resolve.

my tone has to do with the distatste i feel for a couple of forum bush lawyers getting it wrong and denigrating a good number of people who have done nothing but their very difficult jobs

 

[Dave Q]

lol

i could hear the slurping from perth


obviously

though they have been wrong



informed lol and horrendously wrong



who said police dont sometimes get it wrong

though if you are speaking about a specific case, like you guys did with this one, you must point out specifically what they did wrong with proof

neither of you did

you just bagged guys who had to do a difficult job


for all i know his legal team did the best they were able to do given the circumstances

and the circumstances were conducive to a prison sentence

i doubt many legal teams could save bird from a stretch

perhaps you and samshrk could volunteer to be birdies legal team and avoid the mistakes you claim his team have made and maybe get him off altogether


my tone has to do with the distatste i feel for a couple of forum bush lawyers getting it wrong and denigrating a good number of people who have done nothing but their very difficult jobs

You missed the "dickhead" bit, wheres your comeback?

You reckon Bird and his legal team ran a good case.

You dont have clue do you?

Your tone is due to the fact that you delight in unkindness, because in some twisted and deplorable way, it makes you happy.

I bet Bird is wishing Samshark had run his case now.

And as I said, gaol is the wrong option for Bird. He has underlying problems that need to be addressed. Throwing him in gaol, looks good and is easy, but its not going to help anyone.

 

[millersnose]

You missed the "dickhead" bit, wheres your comeback?

i dont need a comeback - you are doing fine all by yourself

You reckon Bird and his legal team ran a good case.

for all i know they did - i dont declare either way

i am not a legal expert like you and samshark

Thats like saying that Hitler did a good job with world war 2.

You dont have clue do you?

lol

this from the legal experts who predicted bird would get off

Your tone is due to the fact that you delight in unkindness, because in some twisted and deplorable way, it makes you happy.

yep

i am a bitch

a sour old bitchy motherf**king bitch

never claimed not to be

I bet Bird is wishing samshark had ran his case now.

lol

this thread continues to pay

 

[Dave Q]

i dont need a comeback - you are doing fine all by yourself

for all i know they did - i dont declare either way

i am not a legal expert like you and samshark



lol

this from the legal experts who predicted bird would get off


yep

i am a bitch

a sour old bitchy motherf**king bitch

never claimed not to be



lol

this thread continues to pay

You are a deranged madman but at least you admit it. You should stop lying though. Its unbecoming.

The girl going overseas was a classic. But of course, that was of her own volition, I am sure it had nothing to do with her being around to give evidence at Birdy's hearing.

Birds lawyers would have been really upset upon hearing the news that she was out of the country. Suprising and depressing news indeed.

Then amazingly, all of a sudden, she can be found to write a robust character reference for him for sentance. Miraculous!!

Without a specific reference to the Bird case:-

As a rule, NSW Magistrates arent stupid, they can smell a rat coming at them from 100 miles away. Theyve seen and heard it all.

Like anybody else, they dislike being treated with contempt. They lock people up for it.

 

[millersnose]

You are a deranged madman but at least you admit it. You should stop lying though. Its unbecoming.

you start with a blatant lie and then call me a liar without stating where

amusing

Without a specific reference to the Bird case:-

why let that stop you - it hasnt at all in your attempts to besmirch the character of men who merely did their jobs and werent guilty of injuring women by thrusting glasses into their face

As a rule, NSW Magistrates arent stupid, they can smell a rat coming at them from 100 miles away. Theyve seen and heard it all.

Like anybody else, they dislike being treated with contempt. They lock people up for it.

well lucky for birdy he has you and samshark waiting to offer your services as his legal team

and as you state bird is probably wishing samshark was his lawyer

 

[Dave Q]

you start with a blatant lie and then call me a liar without stating where

amusing




why let that stop you - it hasnt at all in your attempts to besmirch the character of men who merely did their jobs and werent guilty of injuring women by thrusting glasses into their face



well lucky for birdy he has you and samshark waiting to offer your services as his legal team

and as you state bird is probably wishing samshark was his lawyer

Nope, youre the liar and a bad one at that. Where was I cheering Sam? When did I say Bird would get off? On the contrary, liar.

I am sure that Bird and his lawyers, thought they were doing their best. When did I suggest they committed a crime? Just another nasty inference created by you to furfil your sick mind. Anyway:-

I dont know about Sam, but I would have pleaded early, got a psych report. I would have told him to come clean about what happened. I would have got the shrink to estimate his IQ and discuss his history and alelged problems with alcohol.

I would have asked him to write a letter to Watson apologising for his conduct and I would have done it asap, not on the day of sentancing several months afterwards.

I would have advised him to call a press conference and explain his actions through a spokesperson. I would have got him to apologise to his fans, the club and the general public.

I would have got him to donate funds to a womens refuge, pay for the girls medical treatment. He owes the NRL too.

To fully co-operate with the Police in all facets of their investigation. Go down to the station and make full admissions from go to whoa.

And maybe, just maybe, he wouldnt be facing a long spell in the big house.

All my efforts may have come to nothing sure, but we all know what the alternative is.

Of course its all too late, but even after all the hoopla or whatever, I would spare him from a gaol term.

He deserves to be punished, but he deserves some mercy on account of his problems, so lets look ahead and try to fix the problem.

He is not the devil incarnate, he is just an ordinary guy like us.

 

[millersnose]

Nope, youre the liar and a bad one at that.

you still have not pointed out where

now imagine my shock....

Where was I cheering Sam?

how about 2 posts ago when you were declaring bird likely wants samshark as his lawyer

When did I say Bird would get off?

from about page 10 to about page 170

even yesterday you were declaring birds innocence

I am sure that Bird and his lawyers, thought they were doing their best. When did I suggest they committed a crime?

when did i say you did?

Just another nasty inference created by you to furfil your sick mind. Anyway:-

as i said no such thing maybe its your mind that is getting 'furfilled' with doggy do

I dont know about Sam, but I would have pleaded early, got a psych report.

i detect sam is probably not as mentally affected as you are

but yeah

you probably should get that report

I would have told him to come clean about what happened. I would have got the shrink to estimate his IQ and discuss his history and alelged problems with alcohol.

'alelged' problems with alcohol can be a killer

I would have asked him to write a letter to Watson apologising for his conduct and I would have done it asap, not on the day of sentancing several months afterwards.

I would have advised him to call a press conference and explain his actions through a spokesperson. I would have got him to apologise to his fans, the club and the general public.

I would have got him to donate funds to a womens refuge, pay for the girls medical treatment. He owes the NRL too.

oh for fargs sake

here you go with your waffle

Of course its all too late, but even after all the hoopla or whatever, I would spare him from a gaol term.

oh its not too late

why dont you and samshark go on down and tell him your plans to get him off

He deserves to be punished, but he deserves some mercy on account of his problems, so lets look ahead and try to fix the problem.

He is not the devil incarnate, he is just an ordinary guy like us.

you may think 'ordinary guys' hit women in the face with glasses

thats probably why you should pop off to the shrinks for that report

 

[carcharias]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9l0P-sTGk

 

[Eion]

I dont know about Sam, but I would have pleaded early,

What if your client didn't want to?

 

[Dave Q]

What if your client didn't want to?

If you tell a lawyer that you committed the offence, but that you want to plead not guilty, the lawyer isnt allowed to enter the plea of not guilty on your behalf.

Thats misleading the court and the lawyer can lose his/her licence and possibly worse.

Lawyers can and do pull out of cases all the time because of admissions made to them by people (even witnesses).

Lawyers can sack their clients just about whenever they want to.

Honestly, the prosecutors must have cheered in their offices when they found out that the girl had scurried off overseas. High fives all around in between eating their doughnuts.

Seasoned police prosecutors in full flight, an awesome sight, they can make mince meat of witnesses...even ones who are telling the truth!!

And nose is trying to tell us that the defence did one hell of a job.....well some say they did....for the prosecution!!

Those who visit Millersnose & Co Solicitors looking for justice....they may as well by-pass court altogether and just report to the guvnor at the Bay.

"We ran a good case for you" says Nose as he throws them a toothbrush.

No "not guilty" plea ever turned away!! would be the sticker on his office door.

 

[Eion]

If your client did want to plead not guilty and did not admit to committing the offence you would run the case would you not?

 

[cityshark]

The one person that might have been able to help him wasnt there . Simple as . But he will be out and back OS in a few months but he will never play in the UK now.

 

[Dave Q]

If your client did want to plead not guilty and did not admit to committing the offence you would run the case would you not?

Lawyers ask their clients to explain to them what happened.

If after hearing his account of the events, a lawyer had formed the view that Greg was guilty and yet Greg still wanted to plead not guilty, the lawyer should not act.

A lawyer would have advised Greg of the consequences of pleading not guilty without sufficient evidence to back that plea up, which is when the book lands in someones lap.

If Greg cannot recall what happened, then in the absence of any evidence that supports a plea of not guilty, I dont think many lawyers would run it.

Cleint's can often tell their lawyers that they are innocent and thats fine and everything but the distiction has to be drawn between the instructions and what can be proved. And if there are significant impediments regarding proofs, well the case may not be able to be proved. It may just have to come down to the accused's evidence in court ( if they dare take the stand).

The most desperate lawyers might run a very tough or impossible case, but by and large, I guess not too many would.

This is the problem that Brett Stewart is facing. Brett has already said that he was too drunk to remember anything, so how is he going to be able to counter what the girl alleges he did?

I imagine that Brett and his team wouldnt be drawing too much comfort from Birds case.

Because the magistrate in Birds case was not interested in techincalities... and I bet the beak in Stewarts case will be just as disinterested.

I have no doubts that Greg and lawyers had the best of intentions and in the framework of their thinking, performed. But the result didnt reflect their efforts and thats the big picture.

 

[millersnose]

do you ever get tired of typing shyte?

 

[carcharias]

do you ever get tired of typing shyte?

haha
I worked out Dave a while ago now.
He is clearly insane.

You can prove him wrong time and time again...but nothing will stop him.

Dave invented the saying .." next try wins".

 

[Dave Q]

do you ever get tired of typing shyte?

Its not shyte, Eion asked the question and I answered it. If you dont like the answer, you can piss off.

It seems to me that God put people like you on earth to make everybody else feel better about themselves nose.

 

[Dave Q]

haha
I worked out Dave a while ago now.
He is clearly insane.

You can prove him wrong time and time again...but nothing will stop him.

Dave invented the saying .." next try wins".

Youre another prime boofhead, prone to criticisng things and people you dont and could never hope to understand.

Sort of person who sees humour in the suffering of others.

A splatted mosquito has a greater insight into human nature than you.

Makes me wish I wasnt from the shire.

 

[Inferno]

Lawyers ask their clients to explain to them what happened.

If after hearing his account of the events, a lawyer had formed the view that Greg was guilty and yet Greg still wanted to plead not guilty, the lawyer should not act.

That's not true Dave, it's not up to the lawyer to make up their mind one way or the other. As long as their client does not expressly say they have committed the crime, they are able to represent them as not guilty.

If a client initially confess guilt but later decide to plea not guilty their barrister has the option of returning the brief and refusing to act, or if they wish to retain the brief they can still act for their client through the means of a frozen defence where by they can defend their client on the grounds of a mistake of law, or that there is not enough evidence to convict, though they cannot claim another has committed the crime, or claim a case inconsistent with the confession.

 

[Eion]

That's not true Dave, it's not up to the lawyer to make up their mind one way or the other. As long as their client does not expressly say they have committed the crime, they are able to represent them as not guilty.

If a client initially confess guilt but later decide to plea not guilty their barrister has the option of returning the brief and refusing to act, or if they wish to retain the brief they can still act for their client through the means of a frozen defence where by they can defend their client on the grounds of a mistake of law, or that there is not enough evidence to convict, though they cannot claim another has committed the crime, or claim a case inconsistent with the confession.

Yes "forming the view" is what the courts do (not the lawyers) otherwise what's the point of the whole thing.

 

[samshark]

you were 'surprised' samshark because you got it wrong - very wrong

for 150 pages you pompously declared what would happen with gimp daveq cheerleading you

and here he is blaming his latest gaffe on a journalist

you guys are probably great fellas in real life

but you guys posted for hundreds of pages on this denigrating the police, the legal teams, and others

its time you recognised that bird is guilty of a low low act and stop bagging other people

Millers, you dont listen very well do you. Obviously dont read very well either. Because if you want to go back over the pages you would see the following. Yes, I was WRONG about the outcome of the assault. BUT there is no way I or anyone else could have known what sort of defence his team was going to make. I expected Birds team to be cross examining the witnesses about what they saw/heard etc.

Bird was convicted on a circumstancial case, which doesnt happen very often. Not having a victim testimony or any direct witnesses are pretty big holes in a case. I did think Bird would beat the assault wrap. BUT I did not want him to. Big difference! Ive never said he was innocent. I knew he was guilty from day one and he got what he deserved. Are we clear now Millers!!

As for his defence IMO Birds team fugged up. They had two choices. Firstly, fully cooperate, make full admissions, plead guilty, get a discount, possibly try and use alcohol/psychological state as mitigating factors. Or secondly, fight it all the way, argue and cross examine everything in the prosecution case. But they rolled the dice and did neither of these things and now Bird is looking at a good stint in the slammer. Why do you think Bird and his team have all been so shocked at the outcome and sentence? Good lawyers know whats going to happen, hence the reason why they offer plea deals to try and get something better for their clients. I guarantee you had they taken the first option Bird wouldnt be in the position he is in now. Might even still have a contract with the sharks.

As for any other comment/insight/criticisms I made on the processes, police, court etc. Again as Ive said I made this based on occupational experience. Something Millers, you have nothing of. Your go, is to just criticise others without actually offering anything yourself.

As for Dave Q, he may seem a little eratic at times (no offence Dave) but he is actually quite accurate with his general comments about the legal processes.