News JDB Trial

[Generalzod]

So what are they manipulating?
There has been no verdict they want or dont want. There is no verdict at all on the 5 outstanding charges. They're not relentlessly appealing a verdict rendered. There is no verdict. JDB remains charged on the 5 outstanding count.

They're entitled to persue those charges.

But they had 2 chances...

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

On another note, I’ve read multiple news articles from different media outlets...

While all quote the result of the not guilty plus no verdict result..

All have then gone back into detail about the allegations in depth, with little-no details on the defences’ arguments... most mention “rape” multiple times also...

It’s completely selective journalism which IMO is unbalanced to the case. Nothing new, it’s been reported in a similar way by most journos since going to court...

The two men, JDB n Sinclair have not been found guilty of any charges “but let’s go through all the salacious allegations one more time”....

Even the ABC are in on the act..


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-10/nrl-player-jack-de-belin-jury-verdict/100111886

 

[nick87]

The background noise accompanying this case is miniscule compared to the Pell case. As leader of the Catholic Church following damning Royal Commission findings, he was about the least popular person in the country, and just about everyone in Australia was swayed by the Royal Commission and its accompanying media sideshow which surely meant he was guilty. The Victorian Police pursued their man with extraordinary zeal. And not only the second jury (after a hung jury on the first trial) but two of the three judges in the Victorian Supreme Court got this wrong. Even lay people could see the problems in the verdict, which was finally ruled to be unsound in the High Court after Pell had been in prison for 13 months.

De Belin's case has nothing on that.

Look, if we start talking about th Pell case we're going to get very off topic very quickly.
I agree that this is not on the scale of the Pell case but there is large amounts of public interest in this case, the DPP is, as the title suggests a public prospecutor. The public sentiment is going to have SOME bearing on their decision... to what level? I cant say.

 

[SBD82]

To get the verdict they want...

I mean, that’s literally their role in the criminal justice system. Once the information is presented to them, and if they think the case has a chance of success, it’s their role to pursue a prosecution.

They’d be remiss not to.

 

[Game_Breaker]

the legal system doesn’t decide on innocence. It decides on guilt.

and guilt only has 2 modes - guilty and not guilty. If you can’t find someone guilty, then they are by definition not guilty. It’s simple logic.

At this point in time he is innocent because a jury hasn’t found him guilty

That’s different to a jury finding him to be not guilty

Hung jury =/= Not guilty

 

[nick87]

But they had 2 chances...

The defence also had 2 chances. Neither established their case to a level that a jury could reach a verdit.
On we march. This is how the legal system works.

 

[Chief_Chujo]

The defence also had 2 chances. Neither established their case to a level that a jury could reach a verdit.
On we march. This is how the legal system works.

The defence didn't bring it to court and they aren't there to establish a case. They question the prosecutions case. Twice now those questions have been enough to bring doubt in a jury.

I have real problems with the suggestion a prosecution can endlessly pursue retrials without new evidence. Hypothetically you could say "its their right to pursue charges" after the fifth, sixth etc hung jury. You can't tie up defendants, victims and the courts for years on years on the same arguments. Legally it shouldn't even be an option.

 

[nick87]

The defence didn't bring it to court and they aren't there to establish a case. They question the prosecutions case. Twice now those questions have been enough to bring doubt in a jury.

I have real problems with the suggestion a prosecution can endlessly pursue retrials without new evidence. Hypothetically you could say "its their right to pursue charges" after the fifth, sixth etc hung jury. You can't tie up defendants, victims and the courts for years on years on the same arguments. Legally it shouldn't even be an option.

Yeah I absolutely get that
It’s a fair and valid point. I’ve not offered opinions on what my opinion is on how the legal system works and whether it’s fair and reasonable in cases that are continually hung.

and to be honest I don’t have hardened opinions on it. Pressed for one, I’d say the states have pretty good measures in place to ensure this is limited and I trust out judges and DPP’s generally to do the right thing, which doesn’t mean they always get it right on this front but mostly it’s probably ok

But that’s all just my opinion. I also think the entire justice system for sexual assault needs a total overhaul. Opinions are like arseholes

my comments are simply related to how the system works now. That’s all. And as it stands now, they have a legal right to pursue the outstanding charges

 

[Smug Panther]

I think he's guilty as f**k and hopefully dies a very painful death but anyone not convicted should be able to play. I don't want to live in a world where the innocent are punished for "maybes"

 

[JamesRustle]

At this point in time he is innocent because a jury hasn’t found him guilty

That’s different to a jury finding him to be not guilty

Hung jury =/= Not guilty

On the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, with a hung jury and if the DPP drops the outstanding charges, can JDB be called innocent, or is there another term for this outcome?

 

[Apey]

.

On the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, with a hung jury and if the DPP drops the outstanding charges, can JDB be called innocent, or is there another term for this outcome?

Free to go? I guess.

 

[Danish]

No, that's literally not how it works. I dont know how else to explain it, but your logic is not how the legal system works. There is no verdict on his guilt or innocence on the 5 outstanding charges.
He has not recieved a verdict of not guilty on any of the 5 outstanding charges.
...

Im legitimately at a loss for words as to how to explain it more simply than that. Your interpretation on how the legal system is wrong.

once again, our legal system does not make decisions on innocence. Only guilt.

they either find you guilty, or you are not guilty. Those are the only 2 options.

 

[SBD82]

once again, our legal system does not make decisions on innocence. Only guilt.

they either find you guilty, or you are not guilty. Those are the only 2 options.

A jury trial definitely has a third outcome. Which is what has happened in these circumstances.

Would it help to refer to the two defendants as “the accused”? Because that is what they remain until the DPP withdraw the charges or a verdict is returned. They haven’t been found not guilty, but they are presumed innocent.

 

[soc123_au]

once again, our legal system does not make decisions on innocence. Only guilt.

they either find you guilty, or you are not guilty. Those are the only 2 options.

There is a third option. A hung jury resulting in charges being dismissed. Dismissed charges carry no presumption of guilt either way. Just a don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out or a retrial.

 

[Maximus]

once again, our legal system does not make decisions on innocence. Only guilt.

they either find you guilty, or you are not guilty. Those are the only 2 options.

But they aren't. There has been no finding of not guilty. The charges are still pending

If they go for a 3rd trial, under your theory does he suddenly become 'maybe guilty, maybe not' again?

 

[snickers007]

once again, our legal system does not make decisions on innocence. Only guilt.

they either find you guilty, or you are not guilty. Those are the only 2 options.

How do you explain today's verdict if there are only 2 options? Are you trying to argue that the non decision by the jury is illegal or invalid?

 

[Gardenia]

There is a third option. A hung jury resulting in charges being dismissed. Dismissed charges carry no presumption of guilt either way. Just a don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out or a retrial.

When will it end. Had a feeling this would be the outcome and would bet money same would happen if 3rd trial.2 different judges and different courts and pool of potential jurors in an entirely different demographic more or less same result except now not guilty on one charge . Why go again

 

[Gardenia]

On the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, with a hung jury and if the DPP drops the outstanding charges, can JDB be called innocent, or is there another term for this outcome?

Not proven guilty in a court of law.

 

[myrrh ken]

On the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, with a hung jury and if the DPP drops the outstanding charges, can JDB be called innocent, or is there another term for this outcome?

As innocent as joh bjelke Peterson of the corruption charges

 

[Danish]

But they aren't. There has been no finding of not guilty. The charges are still pending

If they go for a 3rd trial, under your theory does he suddenly become 'maybe guilty, maybe not' again?

they are not guilty until a court proves otherwise. It’s pretty basic.

Is the light on? No? Then it’s not on. And until someone switches it on, it will remain not on. I don’t know how much more simple language can be.