Shaun Kenny-Dowall not guilty of assaulting former partner Jess Peris

[Unscrupulous]

Lol. No wonder the club has backed him from day one.

 

[macavity]

Seems a fine upstanding family, that Peris mob

 

[_snafu_]

Gillard's "captain's pick".

 

[JamesRustle]

Lol. No wonder the club has backed him from day one.

But.. but.. he was found guilty by a jury on LU.

 

[LESStar58]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/sh...m/news-story/cd599a02e129843ed7ca5cfde67eeb61

There's no politically correct way to say this; what a merkin! No doubt this will be spun in to some damning story about the club trying to pay her off!

 

[lolesi]

Also have to remember it is the comments of a defence lawyer who's purpose is to destroy the credibility and integrity of the prosecution.

But a lawyer has never told a fib and are normally fine upstanding members of society..... ??

Any comments made during the trial aren't worth much at this point

 

[Last Week]

Is that what his Lawyer said is it? Oh it must be true then. Apologies Shaun, you've been innocent all along it seems. Be on your merry way.

 

[Chief_Chujo]

Yea the lawyers just making shit up, not like he would have club officials ready to testify about her attempted extortion. Her credibility is shot, charges will be thrown out.

 

[TheDalek079]

feel so sorry for SKDsy having to put up with this big shit mess

 

[gUt]

But.. but.. he was found guilty by a jury on LU.

About as useful as being found not guilty by a jury on LU.

 

[Conditionally Human]

Yea the lawyers just making shit up, not like he would have club officials ready to testify about her attempted extortion. Her credibility is shot, charges will be thrown out.

Question; What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?

Answer; One is a slimy, scum sucking bottom feeder, and the other one is a fish.

 

[lolesi]

Yea the lawyers just making shit up, not like he would have club officials ready to testify about her attempted extortion. Her credibility is shot, charges will be thrown out.

Haha. You have no idea.

No way the lawyer would bend the truth, bluff a defence, try any tactic to find his client not guilty !!

 

[Chief_Chujo]

Haha. You have no idea.

No way the lawyer would bend the truth, bluff a defence, try any tactic to find his client not guilty !!

Lol this isnt a tv show. You don't get to throw around shit in a court without some evidence and/or testimony to back it up. Club officials will testify, under oath, she attempted to extort the club. It's then up to the magistrate to judge who us more credible.

 

[bottle]

Why go through a full trial when from an excerpt of evidence on day one a conclusion can so readily be drawn?
Call it all off, save us some money.

 

[lolesi]

Lol this isnt a tv show. You don't get to throw around shit in a court without some evidence and/or testimony to back it up. Club officials will testify, under oath, she attempted to extort the club. It's then up to the magistrate to judge who us more credible.

Happens all the time mate. under oath doesn't mean the same thing to everyone unfortunately.

Just have a look at the Jamie Gao murder trial that started today. McNamara is running the defence he only was meeting Gao to discuss a new book about Asian crime syndicates.

Just by chance Gao was in the midst of a million dollar drug rip with even big chance McNamara/ friend (allegedly of course) !! What are the odds of that?? I guess though if he is under oath...

You are right though, it is up to the magistrate to determine who has the most credible eveidence.

 

[Chief_Chujo]

Happens all the time mate. under oath doesn't mean the same thing to everyone unfortunately.

Just have a look at the Jamie Gao murder trial that started today. McNamara is running the defence he only was meeting Gao to discuss a new book about Asian crime syndicates.

Just by chance Gao was in the midst of a million dollar drug rip with even big chance McNamara/ friend (allegedly of course) !! What are the odds of that?? I guess though if he is under oath...

You are right though, it is up to the magistrate to determine who has the most credible eveidence.

Not doubting it does, but comparing this to a muder trial is a bit of a stretch. You're also comparing a defendants version of events vs witness testimony. There's a reason they weigh them differently.

 

[Snappy]

Waiting for the girls details to be posted on twitter and threats from deadshits about what's coming her way

 

[thorson1987]

Happens all the time mate. under oath doesn't mean the same thing to everyone unfortunately.

Just have a look at the Jamie Gao murder trial that started today. McNamara is running the defence he only was meeting Gao to discuss a new book about Asian crime syndicates.

Just by chance Gao was in the midst of a million dollar drug rip with even big chance McNamara/ friend (allegedly of course) !! What are the odds of that?? I guess though if he is under oath...

You are right though, it is up to the magistrate to determine who has the most credible eveidence.

With accusations of blackmail/extortion, the defence team would need some form of evidence to back up their claims otherwise the prosecution would rip the claim the shreds.

 

[lolesi]

Of course mate I understand that, my point goes back to my original comment of a claim like this can be anything from nothing more then a suggestion of being looked after verbally which might not mean much and can be torn apart to a written and signed document of her stating a price which doesn't give her a leg to stand on !

It doesn't really matter what the defence or prosecution state now at this stage as none of us are fully informed of the true facts.

 

[The Rosco]

Happens all the time mate. under oath doesn't mean the same thing to everyone unfortunately.

You are spot on Lolesi.
People who refuse to stand before a magistrate, because they are only answerable to their god and not a judge, would not give a flying fkk about lying under oath.
People who lay claim to the ground the courthouse is built on might also not believe in the sanctity of our court system and the concept of speaking under oath.
In general, the only people that respect the gravity of lying under oath usually would not entertain doing it.