What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Children Overboard issue develops

Snoop

Snoop

Coach
Messages
11,717
^ Pando said:
Are lie detector tests considered as conclusive evidence in a court of law?
Click to expand...

If they are allowed as evidence I'm pretty sure the judge would instruct the jury to not accept the results as conclusive.
 
P

^ Pando

retired
Messages
7,121
ibeme said:
Jenny McKenry is not a lie detector test. She was the head of defence public affairs at the time.
Click to expand...

Your last post mentioned Crafton, not McKenry. If you weren't talking about his lie detector test, I apologise.
 
ibeme

ibeme

First Grade
Messages
6,904
^ Pando said:
ibeme said:
Jenny McKenry is not a lie detector test. She was the head of defence public affairs at the time.
Click to expand...

Your last post mentioned Crafton, not McKenry. If you weren't talking about his lie detector test, I apologise.
Click to expand...

McKenry has backed up Scrafton's claims, in addition to a lie detector test.
 
ibeme

ibeme

First Grade
Messages
6,904
millersnose said:
Mckenry spoke to the PM as well?
Click to expand...

Scrafton told her the morning after he'd spoken to the PM that he'd told the PM the truth. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? I bet you'd be telling everyone you knew if you had a conversation with the PM
 
T

Tighthead

Guest
Messages
3,176
Scrafton told her the morning after he'd spoken to the PM that he'd told the PM the truth. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? I bet you'd be telling everyone you knew if you had a conversation with the PM
Click to expand...

If we look at this from an evidentiary perspective, all we have so far is one man's word against anothers. The burden of proof is on Scrafton to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he spoke to the PM that day and told him what he did. As the lie detector test is inadmissible, and McKenry's evidence is nothing but hearsay, Scrafton doesn't have a lot to go on.

Of course, public opinion is not a court of law.
 
ibeme

ibeme

First Grade
Messages
6,904
Tighthead said:
Scrafton told her the morning after he'd spoken to the PM that he'd told the PM the truth. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? I bet you'd be telling everyone you knew if you had a conversation with the PM
Click to expand...

If we look at this from an evidentiary perspective, all we have so far is one man's word against anothers. The burden of proof is on Scrafton to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he spoke to the PM that day and told him what he did. As the lie detector test is inadmissible, and McKenry's evidence is nothing but hearsay, Scrafton doesn't have a lot to go on.

Of course, public opinion is not a court of law.
Click to expand...

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10486351%5E421,00.html

Could be more evidence to come. I doubt Latham would want the gag lifted if they thought it would prove Howard wasn't lying.

With an inquiry now likely, Opposition Leader Mark Latham on Tuesday demanded Mr Howard cancel a Cabinet directive that prevents key ministerial staff from telling their versions of events.

"If the Prime Minister has got nothing to hide, he'll take the gag off today and have open and accountable government for the benefit of the Australian people," he said.

Mr Latham was referring to senior advisers who witnessed Mr Howard's telephone conversations with Mr Scrafton on November 7, 2001 - one month after the alleged children overboard incident and three days before the election.
 
andrew flap

andrew flap

Bench
Messages
4,184
I'd doubt Howard would lift the gag but, if by some miracle he did, it would certainly go a ways to resolving this most contentious issue one way or the other.

Still, the speculation can't be doing Mr Howard much good. At the very least, he is defending himself in the news and not selling the Govt's agenda.
 
_Johnsy

_Johnsy

Referee
Messages
28,455
If that is the case shire what does he have to lose. If he takes the test and passes, well there you go a big, big boost before the election. If he fails, well we all know the consequences. It makes no sense whatsoever if he is not lying, not to take the test.
 
Jimbo

Jimbo

Immortal
Messages
40,107
As Prime Minister Howard said recently, these gimmicks are a waste of everyone's time. Especially as there is not a court in the country which would allow them as evidence
 
P

^ Pando

retired
Messages
7,121
The leader of a country taking a lie detector test after every allegation is ludicrous in the extreme.
 
A

Anonymous

Juniors
Messages
46
millersnose said:
willow

a short time ago you posted that red cross investigation was underway to investigate allawi murdering prisoners
Click to expand...
Get it right.

I concluded that others were urging that the Red Cross investigate. I also said their nature, the Red Cross don't usually 'investigate' such things, they normally file reports.

And it's not relevant to the discussion.

Just because you have your gimps backing you up doesn't make it more relevant.

Here are the facts as we know them:

No children were thrown overboard according to the Commander of the HMAS Adelaide.

This is something even the PM eventually had to concede. Albeit some way down the track.

It was all too much for ShireShark who seems to have a severe case of logic overboard.

The question is did Howard know about it before he made his initial children overboard comments?

According to Scrafton, he did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top