Greg Bird charged with violent attack

[samshark]

Ah, very funny
Dave's the female

 

[samshark]

I think it is possible that Bird could tell Zappia 'XYZ happened', then Zappia could be subpoeanead and be asked in court "What did Bird tell you when you met at the following time".

Obviously, someone testifying that the accused admiited guilt to them, or something like that, isn't conclusive, but it is very powerful and persuasive.

Cant happen

 

[samshark]

Dave, Ill tell you what the police can do with a reluctant victim. NOTHING!
She cant be subpoena'd to give evidence unless she has first provided a statement, signed notebook entry, record of interview etc etc which has to be served on the defence at least 14 days prior to hearing. You cant supboena persons or introduce new evidence that has not been served in the brief. All evidence intended to be used to prove the crime must be made available to the defence minus some exceptions e.g undercover stuff. And I hardly think the defence is going to call her as well.

This is all very simple guys. Bird has allegedly done something either accidental or intentional, however with no witnesses, a victim who is supporting Bird and a defence of say nothing to no one then the case cant be proven. Charges dismissed. Thats why he wont talk to the club.

Thanks Spider, I should know better

 

[coolumsharkie]

I have actually enjoyed it & learnt quite a bit.
Fully appreciated the comments from Dave & SamShark & a few others who have contributed with great information.

Each to their own reefy, I'm with millers. it's been done to death imo. Nothing can be said that hasn't already 5 times over.

It's an obvious stalemate.

What happens after the fact will be discussed in triplicate once again no doubt.

 

[Surely]

Each to their own reefy, I'm with millers. it's been done to death imo. Nothing can be said that hasn't already 5 times over.

It's an obvious stalemate.

What happens after the fact will be discussed in triplicate once again no doubt.

Daves still got more to add, f**k knows why.

 

[millersnose]

dave is our resident legal expert

go for it dave

only 134 to go

 

[Miller was a legend]

1867 Come on Sharks

 

[Frenzy.]

Me too.

 

[coolumsharkie]

1869 two sets of numbers from my youth.

 

[Frenzy.]

1869 two sets of numbers from my youth.

16 and 89?

 

[cjs1822]

i'm 1870

 

[cjs1822]

and 1871

 

[gunnamatta bay]

no need to panic. there are plenty of twists and turns yet. trust me.

 

[cjs1822]

so your saying we will get over the 2000?

 

[blacktip-reefy]

The sharks will get to well over 700,000.

dollars

 

[gunnamatta bay]

so your saying we will get over the 2000?

3000 for surely

 

[gunnamatta bay]

imagine if all the other threads were combined!!!

 

[Dave Q]

Samshark our learned friend:

Hypothetical:-

A guy is walking along Steve Kneen Avenue at Barden Ridge at 2.00am in the morning and is attacked from behind and sadly, murdered.

No witnesses to the event, everyone is up late watching re-runs of F-troop or a documentary on Atlantic sea sponges.

The victim is dead and therefore cant make a statement.

How do the police prosecute the killer/s?

Pfenning v R 1995 ( legal principles discussed) High Court.

77. Once the propensity evidence is used alternative hypotheses and
doubts that one might have about particular segments of the evidence
are eliminated. Circumstantial evidence "works by cumulatively, in
geometrical progression, eliminating other possibilities" (195 Reg. v. Kilbourne (1973) AC 729 at 758 per Lord Simon of Glaisdale). Ultimately, the propensity and other evidence in this case combine to
cut out all hypotheses other than the hypothesis that the appellant
abducted and murdered Michael Black.

Micheal was a kid who went fishing with the family dog....some sick bastard got him.

But this an interesting excerpt to examine as far as the court's reasoning goes.

 

[BatteredFlake]

Reruns of F Troop ? When ? Where ?

 

[Miller was a legend]

Samshark our learned friend:

Hypothetical:-

A guy is walking along Steve Kneen Avenue at Barden Ridge at 2.00am in the morning and is attacked from behind and sadly, murdered.

No witnesses to the event, everyone is up late watching re-runs of F-troop or a documentary on Atlantic sea sponges.

The victim is dead and therefore cant make a statement.

How do the police prosecute the killer/s?

Pfenning v R 1995 ( legal principles discussed) High Court.

77. Once the propensity evidence is used alternative hypotheses and
doubts that one might have about particular segments of the evidence
are eliminated. Circumstantial evidence "works by cumulatively, in
geometrical progression, eliminating other possibilities" (195 Reg. v. Kilbourne (1973) AC 729 at 758 per Lord Simon of Glaisdale). Ultimately, the propensity and other evidence in this case combine to
cut out all hypotheses other than the hypothesis that the appellant
abducted and murdered Michael Black.

Micheal was a kid who went fishing with the family dog....some sick bastard got him.

But this an interesting excerpt to examine as far as the court's reasoning goes.

Having read your post dave I think it is reasonable to deduce from the circumstancial evidence, culmulatively in geometrical progression and eliminating other possiblities, that Michaels dog glassed Birds girlfriend in a case of mistaken identity, (it's kate not kat you stupid f**king dog), hence Bird is innocent and therefore should be free to play.