Rape trial dropped because attacks on the accuser endanger her health?

[LB 15]

the prosecution overreached, and then looked stupid.

Well the tie and lapel pin don't help...

 

[ShortForBob]

I don’t know how you folks do it, but on every jury I’ve been on, the only people who went in the jury room when a trial was ongoing were the bailiff
and the jurors. In one case we handed all our trash to the bailiff and he put it in a trash bag and carried it out. In the other, we had a trash can with a clear bag, which the bailiff carried off at the end of the trial. There were no regular cleaning people who went in the jury room.

Its one of the bailiff’s jobs to recognize when the jury is potentially misbehaving and bring it to the court’s attention. Since the bailiffs also handle the evidence at trial, they are pretty familiar with with what should be in the jury room.

Again, you may do it differently, but here it wouldn’t take a conspiracy for a bailiff or the equivalent, when opening the door to talk to the jurors or pick up the trash, to recognize an out of place document. If they see something suspicious or out of place, it is their job to report it and let the judge decide how to handle the issue.

And it wouldn't take a conspiracy for one of the jurors to take documents into the jury room. Which is what happened. The jury were told 17 times by the judge not to do their own research.
Whether the juryperson was intending to have the trial dropped or just stupid and arrogant we'll never know, but as in the ACT one can't prosecute a jury member for bad behaviour, they got away with it.
If you go back 37 pages, the point is, if it's this easy to force a mistrial in some jurisdictions if a case doesn't seem to be going the way an individual juror think's it should, what can be done?
Search the jurors going in and out?

 

[ShortForBob]

This just seems like a case where the prosecution overreached, and then looked stupid.

Overreached how? I don't know what you are referring to, the prosecution of the defendant or the prosecutor's complaints about the police colluding with the defense team.

 

[Fah Kiew Tu]

None of us would have heard a word about if it weren't for the political aspect that people were exploiting for gain & benefit

BH could have made a formal complaint to the police and stayed behind the anonymity shield that's the default position in the law.

She chose to spread the issue in front of the press. That was HER choice alone.

As for the actual offence, you've got people here - Meli, Ease and Randumb being 3 most vociferous - proclaiming the man is a serial rapist. Full stop. He definitely did it and should be jailed. Call them Group A.

Then you've a bunch of others, including me, saying insufficient evidence so NFI if he did it or not, but it doesn't seem to meet the 'beyone reasonable doubt' standard for a criminal conviction. Group B.

At which point Group A - the 'definitely guilty regardless of evidence' lost their shit and start attacking Group B.

And then Group A whine about how long this thread has become and how people are nasty - again.

Great entertainment but - there's still no way of knowing what - if anything - BL did to BH in the confines of a Govt office, after getting thoroughly pissed.

Round 2 will be the defamation cases - if any. That should provide a lot more entertainment. With a bit of luck Meli will get served a writ.

FKT

 

[LB 15]

Wow.
Britney Higgins signs multimillion dollar endorsement deal with IKEA

IKEA Australia have announced that author and celebrity victim Brittney Higgins is to become the face of their new line of couches. As with all products customers will be provided with all the components and relevant information, and they can put it together for themselves.

Key points-
- Deal said to be worth over 3 million
- New models will include the 'Luxury Linda' and the 'Cash recliner'
- A special edition couch called the 'Lying Lisa' is specifically designed for those who have no spine and will be marketed using the line 'We haven't got your back'
- The entire range will be advertised using the line 'Nothing will disturb you on an Ikea couch.'

www.yourwokeabc/toosoon?/thisshouldmakerandomsheadexplode

 

[LB 15]

BH could have made a formal complaint to the police and stayed behind the anonymity shield that's the default position in the law.

She chose to spread the issue in front of the press. That was HER choice alone.

As for the actual offence, you've got people here - Meli, Ease and Randumb being 3 most vociferous - proclaiming the man is a serial rapist. Full stop. He definitely did it and should be jailed. Call them Group A.

Then you've a bunch of others, including me, saying insufficient evidence so NFI if he did it or not, but it doesn't seem to meet the 'beyone reasonable doubt' standard for a criminal conviction. Group B.

At which point Group A - the 'definitely guilty regardless of evidence' lost their shit and start attacking Group B.

And then Group A whine about how long this thread has become and how people are nasty - again.

Great entertainment but - there's still no way of knowing what - if anything - BL did to BH in the confines of a Govt office, after getting thoroughly pissed.

Round 2 will be the defamation cases - if any. That should provide a lot more entertainment. With a bit of luck Meli will get served a writ.

FKT

Don't forget group C - The 'fuck I love this place' types who are only here to make LWNJ's heads explode. See post above.

 

[spankoka]

Overreached how? I don't know what you are referring to, the prosecution of the defendant or the prosecutor's complaints about the police colluding with the defense team.

Well; if there was not a reasonable chance of conviction-that would end the prosecution case in the Dominion I was born into.

 

[ShortForBob]

Well; if there was not a reasonable chance of conviction-that would end the prosecution case in the Dominion I was born into.

And who makes that call in the dominion you were born into? The police or the DPP?

We all knew that senior politicians we involved somehow, but now the prosecutor is alleging that the federal police (ACT only has Federal police) were colluding with the defence team from the get go.
You may not be aware, but this case didn't just arise out of the blue.
She came forward at a time when the Government of the day were struggling in a swamp of historical and current rape and sexual misconduct allegations against serving ministers.
All this "why did she wait" crap should be seen in this context.
It's not now a "simple" rape case aborted but much deeper.
Trial evidence is being released, and then there's those three other women who came forward with rape and assault accusations against the same man, spanning 7 years,
Wait for the Docudrama

 

[spankoka]

The Crown prosecutors, the police can suggest to the Crown where I come from. However, the cops are not the ones who get humiliated in court when laughable prosecutions get laughed at.

 

[ShortForBob]

The Crown prosecutors, the police can suggest to the Crown where I come from. However, the cops are not the ones who get humiliated in court when laughable prosecutions get laughed at.

So you think the prosecution was laughable?
In what way?
Shesaid/hesaid rape trials are always hard to prosecute, should women just let it go?
There are those that think that if a woman doesn't go to the police, unshowered in the first 24 hours, showing bruising and evidence that she resisted, that she must just expect not to be believed.
Things are changing but we have a long way to go.
I don't know if she was raped or not, but she does have a right to expect police to be impartial.

 

[Goodvibes]

Well; if there was not a reasonable chance of conviction-that would end the prosecution case in the Dominion I was born into.

Of course. And every call they make is spot on right?

The first version of the Australian Federal Police was established to protect Federal politicians in 1917, the Commonwealth Police Force (CPF).

Now the AFP They are still attempting to protect what was the Government at the time. Hard to change a culture.

 

[ShortForBob]

Of course. And every call they make is spot on right?

The first version of the Australian Federal Police was established to protect Federal politicians in 1917, the Commonwealth Police Force (CPF).

They are still attempting to protect what was the Government at the time.

Looks like it.
Should the Gov be holding an enquiry?
Albo's going to have to make a completely new Department to cover all the enquiries.
Oh, wait a minute, he's got one all ready, the NACC

 

[LB 15]

Of course. And every call they make is spot on right?

The first version of the Australian Federal Police was established to protect Federal politicians in 1917, the Commonwealth Police Force (CPF).

Now the AFP They are still attempting to protect what was the Government at the time. Hard to change a culture.

So the AFP was formed by Billy Hughes in 1917 but despite there being 39 different governments since then, they still swear allegiance to the Nationalists party?

Early start on the bong today?

 

[spankoka]

Nope; she said it was rape. He said no, it was not rape. This should reflect on him even if it not was rape. He should not be out drinking at all hours and create this situation in the first place. The prosecutors did not think they could get a conviction based on the evidence. This is how it works in my Dominion.

 

[Ease the sheet.]

The Crown prosecutors, the police can suggest to the Crown where I come from. However, the cops are not the ones who get humiliated in court when laughable prosecutions get laughed at.

The way the crown prosecutors/DPP are funded means that cannot afford to make bad calls on cases.


They have a duty to only prosecute cases that have a reasonable chance of winning.


Being laughed out of court is both financially and reputationally reckless.


The level of interest in this case would require those prosecuting to bring their A game.

 

[Ease the sheet.]

Nope; she said it was rape. He said no, it was not rape. This should reflect on him even if it not was rape. He should not be out drinking at all hours and create this situation in the first place. The prosecutors did not think they could get a conviction based on the evidence. This is how it works in my Dominion.

No witness, no crime...

 

[Se7en]

the point is, if it's this easy to force a mistrial in some jurisdictions if a case doesn't seem to be going the way an individual juror think's it should, what can be done?
Search the jurors going in and out?

OK
You are leaning towards someone deliberately causing a mistrial.
Lets think this through.
It needs a unanimous decision to find someone guilty of rape.
Therefore, if as a juror, you are convinced someone is innocent in a rape case, you know that all you have to do is keep voting 'innocent' and the defendant will get off, and can never be tried for that crime again. However, if you cause a mistrial, then there will likely be a new case, where the defendant might be found guilty.

So if you think the person is innocent, there is a 100% foolproof and legal way to ensure that outcome.

But if you think someone is guilty, but are sure that other jurors think they are innocent, you are stuck. Just one 'innocent' call outvotes 11 guilty calls. So it seems you are stuck.

Unless! perhaps if there is a mistrial, the next jury might find a guilty verdict.

So tell us - is there any possible reason that you can see for someone who thought the defendant innocent for deliberately causing a mistrial?

To me, it is much more likely that it was someone who wanted a guilty verdict, and knew they couldn't get it, would deliberately cause the miscarriage of justice that results from a known innocent verdict being disrupted.

 

[spankoka]

Actually, one thing Australian thing I really like is the TV Show "Water Rats". The funny thing about my one visit to Sydney is that I was fascinated by a really large spider crossing the road. A local with high heels drove her heel right through it while I was appreciating that thing. Heel/legs/hose, vs nature-I know what side I am on!

 

[Fah Kiew Tu]

Nope; she said it was rape. He said no, it was not rape. This should reflect on him even if it not was rape. He should not be out drinking at all hours and create this situation in the first place. The prosecutors did not think they could get a conviction based on the evidence. This is how it works in my Dominion.

Why is it his responsibility not to be out drinking at all hours with a mature adult?

Surely it's BOTH their responsibilities or neither.

Edit: And his claim is, there was NO sex at all, not that he didn't rape her. Because if he'd said yeah he had sex with her but she'd consented, I'd be calling that rape, because she was too pissed to consent in my opinion.

But no sex, it's really hard to do much with that absent forensics and the time that passed before making a complaint to the police. It was a shambles from day 1.

FKT

 

[Se7en]

I don't know if she was raped or not, but she does have a right to expect police to be impartial.

Huh?
You have stated that you know that BL is a serial rapist, but you don't actually know if BH was raped?
Which of the other accusations are you sure of then? And whay are they actually? The only one I've seen was the leg fondling accusation - which for me at least, falls a little short of rape.

You must have had some firm knowledge before you came on here and unequivically stated that BL is a rapist? Surely?