News JDB Trial

[Danish]

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?

today’s verdict is that both accused are current not guilty of any crime.

a 3rd trial may be run to try and change that to guilty

 

[Last Week]

In circumstances where the trial has been run twice, public interest also becomes a highly relevant factor.

Yeah, that works both ways.

 

[Last Week]

I suspect most if not all people commenting here have no experience at all in court rooms apart from maybe a day here or there.

You don't know, you'll probably never know and you don't want to learn otherwise.

Even a not guilty verdict doesn't always equal innocence. It just means that the evidence doesn't prove someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It's an entirely different test in a criminal matter as opposed to virtually every other aspect of life.

If the entire brief of evidence was made public, we could all pass judgement on balance if they did or didn't do it. But this test leaves it way too open for bias to come into it.

 

[gerg]

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.

Good analogy, let's run with it. Prove to me that your house light is on or off. Until you can prove it either way, I can't say whether it is on or off.

 

[AnonymousLurker]

Good analogy, let's run with it. Prove to me that your house light is on or off. Until you can prove it either way, I can't say whether it is on or off.

I hear it’s on and he is ruining the climate

 

[JamesRustle]

Might be getting ahead of myself, but if JDB gets back, the Dragons day game threads will be.... interesting.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

today’s verdict is that both accused are current not guilty of any crime.

a 3rd trial may be run to try and change that to guilty

Raises a question in my mind....

Can the accused in a case like this request a 3rd trial to “clear their name”??

Not saying in any way that De Belin would do that here, but I’m certain he’s now going to be laboured with all the tags of what he’s been charged with by many parts of the community ... and mainly because of the twice-hung-jury...

I’m sure he’d have some sense of relief around not being found guilty ... but at the same time this mud will stick... primarily because of the result of both trials...

 

[St Tangles]

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

The ABC would be first in

 

[Apey]

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.

You're still confusing: 1) not "guilty" with 2) "not guilty". In logic, 1) is the negation of "guilty" where the definition is strictly NOT that option, but says nothing about what option it actually is; in this example, in a court of law, not "guilty" implies either "not guilty" or "hung jury" or whatever other options there may be. "Not guilty" is it's own finding and is not the same as not being found guilty. Yes, they're the same thing/words in the English language, if you completely ignore the context. No, they're not the same thing in the context; a court of law where guilty and not guilty are not the only rulings.

 

[snickers007]

today’s verdict is that both accused are current not guilty of any crime.

a 3rd trial may be run to try and change that to guilty

They are presumed innocent, but still accused. This is vastly different to not guilty, as has been explained to you by everyone who has stupidly chosen to engage with you on this topic (myself included).

Not sure what the end game of your little linguistic honeypot is though. Hopefully you stick to your day job as an English Professor, and don't make the jump into the legal world.


Edit: Or what Apey said above ^^^^

 

[Danish]

Good analogy, let's run with it. Prove to me that your house light is on or off. Until you can prove it either way, I can't say whether it is on or off.

its actually a bad analogy because off its own state. It is not the absence of a a state.

 

[Danish]

You're still confusing: 1) not "guilty" with 2) "not guilty". In logic, 1) is the negation of "guilty" where the definition is strictly NOT that option, but says nothing about what option it actually is; in this example, in a court of law, not "guilty" implies either "not guilty" or "hung jury" or whatever other options there may be. "Not guilty" is it's own finding and is not the same as not being found guilty. Yes, they're the same thing/words in the English language, if you completely ignore the context. No, they're not the same thing in the context; a court of law where guilty and not guilty are not the only rulings.

A hung jury is effectively a verdict of not guilty, since guilt has not been found and we must presume everyone innocent until proven otherwise

 

[myrrh ken]

today’s verdict is that both accused are current not guilty of any crime.

a 3rd trial may be run to try and change that to guilty

Wrong. There was only one verdict of the six charges. There were no verdicts on the other 5 charges.

 

[myrrh ken]

A hung jury is effectively a verdict of not guilty

Incorrect. They can still be prosecuting on the pending charges

 

[myrrh ken]

You're still confusing: 1) not "guilty" with 2) "not guilty". In logic, 1) is the negation of "guilty" where the definition is strictly NOT that option, but says nothing about what option it actually is; in this example, in a court of law, not "guilty" implies either "not guilty" or "hung jury" or whatever other options there may be. "Not guilty" is it's own finding and is not the same as not being found guilty. Yes, they're the same thing/words in the English language, if you completely ignore the context. No, they're not the same thing in the context; a court of law where guilty and not guilty are not the only rulings.

IE they are not Guilty , but they are not Not Guilty. Simple stuff.

 

[Danish]

Wrong. There was only one verdict of the six charges. There were no verdicts on the other 5 charges.

They don’t need to deliver a verdict on them to be not guilty of them. By definition his is not guilty until proven otherwise.

if they have a 3rd trial and get a guilty verdict, then he’ll become guilty. Until that happens, he is currently not guilty of any crime.

I don’t know why this is so difficult for people to comprehend. It’s basic stuff

 

[soc123_au]

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

I'm not suggesting they go again. Just pointing it out as a potential scenario. It seems odd to me that they couldn't agree whether or not a rape occurred, but they are confident that the back door action was fine. My understanding is that JDB has admitted to using the tradesman's entrance, although by "accident" so it's fair to assume said action took place.

 

[myrrh ken]

They don’t need to deliver a verdict on them to be not guilty of them. By definition his is not guilty until proven otherwise.

You're now changing your argument. You stated that they did deliver a verdict.

if they have a 3rd trial and get a guilty verdict, then he’ll become guilty. Until that happens, he is currently not guilty of any crime.

This statement is correct (finally). Your previous statements were not correct.

 

[Last Week]

They don’t need to deliver a verdict on them to be not guilty of them. By definition his is not guilty until proven otherwise.

if they have a 3rd trial and get a guilty verdict, then he’ll become guilty. Until that happens, he is currently not guilty of any crime.

I don’t know why this is so difficult for people to comprehend. It’s basic stuff

You're the one that's having difficulty and are looking at it way to simplistically.

Yes, he's not guilty because a guilty verdict hasn't been reached. But the jury didn't come back with a verdict of not guilty (bar one charge). So there's no finding that he's not guilty, only that the jury couldn't agree.

But, for the general public who have only lay knowledge in law, yes he can be considered as not guilty.

Innocent is an entirely different consideration. To find him innocent, the evidence would need to suggest that he didn't do what was alleged.

In this case, the evidence didn't meet the high test to prove him not innocent. Make sense?

 

[nick87]

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.

The f**k is wrong with you? How are you struggling with this very basic concept.
This is alarming levels of stupidity on display. But i've done all i can to explain to you how the legal system works... if you want to live in some fantasy land where the system works how you want it to, i cant stop you