Search results

I am stunned he even agreed to participate in that interview. All I have is a wild guess is that he was doing a favour for an old Kiwi mate. But, while what he did say in that interview is not ground breaking at all, it is yet well worth an understanding ear. He knows what he is talking about.

His misery will be ongoing. No-one (everyone has a conscience) walks away from that sort of incident unscathed, and as though it never happened. It did. He was there. It happened in his World.

I am so sorry to hear of that. I accept your opinion and 100% acknowledge your entitlement to it. I have no opinion on his guilty or innocence. That was for the Jury who heard all the evidence at the Trial, and not me to determine.

I assume that is a poster here. No, I am not ElderFruit. If it is okay with you all, I'll just discuss the case, not personalities.

The word 'skewed' suggests you have a continuing notion of corruption of some sort. The outcome of the Trial was a verdict of 'Not Guilty.' The Crown ran its case, the Defence did not even run a case in the sense that they called zero evidence. The Jury unanimously concluded he was 'Not...

All I can offer in response to that is....if they had any such evidence, and it was admissible, we all would know about it.

Hi Emirates. Thanks for the warm welcome. I am none of those you are referring to.

I think it is an over-reach to say he fled the scene, but no matter really. There is every reason the neighbours heard loud noises, as there were loud noises to hear, as the recording reveals. I was unaware a search warrant was issued. Is that your opinion, or is it fact? I don't think the...

There are always levels of competence and experience within the DPP, but in this case, the best was prosecuting. Within the Australian Criminal Justice System.....yes, I am of that opinion. There is no evidence or even suggestion here to the contrary. Yes. For all we know the Police found...

Yes, 'evidence' is often found to be inadmissible. Juries never get to hear about any evidence ruled inadmissible, There are always sound historical legal reasons for that, and it is never done on an arbitrary basis. The job of the Jury is to make a decision based on the evidence presented...

I cannot speak for the majority any more than anyone else can. All I can say is that all 12 Jurors found him 'Not Guilty.' I think 100% of the Community know that is the case.

Sticking with your analogy and my flip of it: You never stole the car at all, you had nothing to do with stealing the car. An eye witness swore that they saw you stealing the car. You are charged. You have good legal representation, and your Barrister cross examines the eye witness well...

If you flip that to this - If you do not steal a car, and you are charged and then found not guilty, are you not as innocent as you were before you were charged?

Yay! I can. Hello, Silly Billy. You say that Tostee was not found innocent. That is correct as a matter of Law in Australia. So far as I know, only Scotland allows for a Jury to deliver a verdict of "Innocent." What you have not acknowledged is this, and it would really be appreciated if...