Rumour 2024 Rumours and Speculation Part 3

Remove this Banner Ad

He wasn't offered the opportunity to cross examine the witness on some text messages about her state of mind earlier in the evening.

Well, that's not a technicality, that's deliberate withholding of evidence that should be made available to the defence . Not surprising with these kinds of prosecutions though, thwe saw with Drumgold how little modern DPP care for rules of justice. Shameful.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

You think she went all the way to trial on a tape accusation, including exposing herself to cross examination, on an event that didn't have a negative impact on her?

I'll ask again, how was it "obviously traumatic"? And was she fully exposed to cross examination, given we know the prosecution deliberately and illegally protected aspects of the event that would harm her accusation?
 


Good leadership

I don't follow AFLW anything (bc patriarchy) but the first comment is pretty dope "but she’s ok with a teammates stance to not participate in Pride Round"

being ok with people sitting out of the pride round (and not sitting out of their entire career) is pissweak leadership

people are so complicated!!!!!!!!
 
Well, that's not a technicality, that's deliberate withholding of evidence that should be made available to the defence . Not surprising with these kinds of prosecutions though, thwe saw with Drumgold how little modern DPP care for rules of justice. Shameful.
It was nothing to do with the DPP, it was argued in court. The defence were aware of it.

"As NSWCCA Justice Stephen Rothman explained last week, the trial judge had refused to give Hayne the opportunity to examine the woman regarding the new material and her failure to disclose these communications with Smiles and Page."

A retrial was ordered because the appeal court thought he could still have been found guilty even if that cross was allowed (though this was not unanimous). The DPP elected not to proceed.
 
I'll ask again, how was it "obviously traumatic"? And was she fully exposed to cross examination, given we know the prosecution deliberately and illegally protected aspects of the event that would harm her accusation?
Yeah you made the last part up. There's no suggestion of misconduct on the prosecutors part.
 
It was nothing to do with the DPP, it was argued in court. The defence were aware of it.

"As NSWCCA Justice Stephen Rothman explained last week, the trial judge had refused to give Hayne the opportunity to examine the woman regarding the new material and her failure to disclose these communications with Smiles and Page."

A retrial was ordered because the appeal court thought he could still have been found guilty even if that cross was allowed (though this was not unanimous). The DPP elected not to proceed.
Why? (bolded bit)
 
Ponder this.

Connor Idun, a black man, was fined for depicting a scene in a movie depicting black slavery. His penalty was administered by... a white man.

Seriously, you cant make this shit up.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I can't recall any post season fines. None from various Las Vegas drug binges, none from any similar " dress up" themed pub crawls. Nada.
AFL are now run by lawyers who love to litigate...
 
Chris Judd retired a decade ago. Not exactly relevant.
?

Wasn't trying to make a point that Greene shouldn't have been penalised

My recollection is that Judd did get penalised, or at the very least that Caro & others absolutely teed off on him
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Rumour 2024 Rumours and Speculation Part 3

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top