denis preston
First Grade
- Messages
- 8,784
Jesus, why we didn't wipe our hands of his contract when we had the chance so we could spend a much needed 600k to get an elite player on our list i will never know !
Agree here even if he does come back how will he be ? IMO should have cut ties with him ...... If he wasn't a high profile player would they have continued to pay him ..... ?Jesus, why we didn't wipe our hands of his contract when we had the chance so we could spend a much needed 600k to get an elite player on our list i will never know !
IMO it would appear that JDB's own evidence may be the very reason why a unanimous decision could be reached on Charge 6.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/j...e/news-story/aaabbebe757222928c848c25852ecf80
Judge Noman gave them a black direction, urging them to keep considering unanimous verdicts for the remaining counts.
The black direction is given to a jury when members say they cannot reach a unanimous verdict. The direction tells them they could be discharged if they cannot come to a decision.
Lucky it wasn't his foot .....Yes , it would appear that he has really put his foot in to it - so to speak .
I'm not sure maybe the Judge beleleives the last one won't hold up on appeal if none of the others standSo is that like ordering them to make one? That could only get some of the not guilty jurors backs up and more stubborn.
It could also be vice versa.So is that like ordering them to make one? That could only get some of the not guilty jurors backs up and more stubborn.
That's true.It could also be vice versa.
The outcome of unanimous or majority decision is equally important for the defendants in relation to "not guilty" as well.
If 2 jurors are hanging on to guilty which is possible and the rest are not guilty then it is equally important for them to try and get better than a hung jury and a presumption of innocence outcome for the defendants.
Their lives would be immeasurably better with a clear cut not guilty outcome and the judge and jury would be just as mindful of that..
Because he is innocent until proven guiltyJesus, why we didn't wipe our hands of his contract when we had the chance so we could spend a much needed 600k to get an elite player on our list i will never know !
If thats the case then the NRL should have let him continue playing until it was concluded ..... Either way it has been not good for him or the Club ....Because he is innocent until proven guilty
That has been done and dusted by the NRL why he did not continue to be allowed to play so that point is no longer validIf thats the case then the NRL should have let him continue playing until it was concluded ..... Either way it has been not good for him or the Club ....
Either way it is all coming to an end ..... Should know soon ....That has been done and dusted by the NRL why he did not continue to be allowed to play so that point is no longer valid
but he is rightfully able to continue to be paid of his prior contract till it ended
All these assumptions on here about facts of the case and what the jury are arguing or why they can’t reach verdicts etc have no credibility...yet