https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/10/jury-finds-jack-de-belin-not-guilty-on-one-sexual-assault-charge-but-fails-to-reach-verdict-on-four-charges

Looks like he may face another trial. OK I understand the process but
surely the DPP needs to give up at sometime if there isn't new evidence.

"Dechucka" <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zqidnaCZc5wgWwT9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
> https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/10/jury-finds-jack-de-belin-not-guilty-on-one-sexual-assault-charge-but-fails-to-reach-verdict-on-four-charges
>
> Looks like he may face another trial. OK I understand the process but
> surely the DPP needs to give up at sometime if there isn't new evidence.

Not if the problem is just that the evidence isnt very clear
cut and the jurys cant agree on whether they are guilty
or innocent or the defence is an incompetent fuckwit.

Dechucka wrote:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/10/jury-finds-jack-de-belin-not-guilty-on-one-sexual-assault-charge-but-fails-to-reach-verdict-on-four-charges
>
> Looks like he may face another trial. OK I understand the process but
> surely the DPP needs to give up at sometime if there isn't new evidence.
>

** Yes - it stinks of " double jeopardy".

The DPP trys to analyse what went wrong in such cases and then modify their evidence each time until they win.
Rotten thing to do, total abuse of power.

...... Phil

On 11-May-21 10:35 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Dechucka wrote:
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/10/jury-finds-jack-de-belin-not-guilty-on-one-sexual-assault-charge-but-fails-to-reach-verdict-on-four-charges
>>
>> Looks like he may face another trial. OK I understand the process but
>> surely the DPP needs to give up at sometime if there isn't new evidence.
>>
>
> ** Yes - it stinks of " double jeopardy".
>
> The DPP trys to analyse what went wrong in such cases and then modify their evidence each time until they win.
> Rotten thing to do, total abuse of power.
>
>
> ..... Phil
>

The fact that this jury acquitted on one charge must at least suggest
that the difficulty in reaching a verdict is due to a minority of jurors
wanting to convict. The DPP should realise that the most likely outcome
of repeated trials will ultimately be an acquittal, and give it up now.

Sylvia.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Dechucka wrote

>> https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/10/jury-finds-jack-de-belin-not-guilty-on-one-sexual-assault-charge-but-fails-to-reach-verdict-on-four-charges

>> Looks like he may face another trial. OK I understand the process but
>> surely the DPP needs to give up at sometime if there isn't new evidence.

> Yes - it stinks of " double jeopardy".

Only to fuckwits that don’t have a clue about the difference
between a not guilty verdict and the jury not being able to
agree if the defendant is guilty or innocent.

> The DPP trys to analyse what went wrong in such cases

Yes.

> and then modify their evidence each time until they win.

More utterly mindless bullshit, as always from you.

> Rotten thing to do, total abuse of power.

More utterly mindless bullshit, as always from you.

Sylvia Else wrote:
=============
>
> >> Looks like he may face another trial. OK I understand the process but
> >> surely the DPP needs to give up at sometime if there isn't new evidence.
> >>
> >
> > ** Yes - it stinks of " double jeopardy".
> >
> > The DPP trys to analyse what went wrong in such cases and then modify their evidence each time until they win.
> > Rotten thing to do, total abuse of power.
> >
> >
> The fact that this jury acquitted on one charge must at least suggest
> that the difficulty in reaching a verdict is due to a minority of jurors
> wanting to convict. The DPP should realise that the most likely outcome
> of repeated trials will ultimately be an acquittal, and give it up now.
>

** Completely wrong ( vexatious ) to prosecute any case with a low chance of conviction.
Cos that mean there is reasonable doubt.

Only police egos and political correctness is driving this.

...... Phil

Rod Speed is an INSANE Bullshitter wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------

> > Yes - it stinks of " double jeopardy".
>
> Only to fuckwits that don’t have a clue about the difference
> between a not guilty verdict and the jury not being able to
> agree if the defendant is guilty or innocent.

** Never the job of any criminal jury - you lying fuckwit.

FYI :

The jury must have *no doubt* about guilt based on the evidence presented.
The accused may or may not be innocent, that is irrelevant.

The DPP having several goes at manipulating evidence , learning from each attempt to get a guilty result is DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

...... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Yes - it stinks of " double jeopardy".

>> Only to fuckwits that don’t have a clue about the difference
>> between a not guilty verdict and the jury not being able to
>> agree if the defendant is guilty or innocent.

> Never the job of any criminal jury

More utterly mindless pig ignorant shit if you are referring
to the last bit of that sentence. Just what you’d expect from a
drug crazed drunken completely unemployable dole bludger.

> FYI :

> The jury must have *no doubt* about guilt based on the evidence presented.

The technical term is beyond REASONABLE doubt, fuckwit.

> The accused may or may not be innocent, that is irrelevant.

More utterly mindless pig ignorant shit. Just what you’d expect from
a drug crazed drunken completely unemployable dole bludger.

> The DPP having several goes at manipulating evidence,

No evidence was manipulated between his two trials.

> learning from each attempt to get a guilty result is DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

If it was, the appeal system would throw it out and that didn’t happen,
fuckwit.

On 11/05/2021 1:40 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Rod Speed is an INSANE Bullshitter wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>> Yes - it stinks of " double jeopardy".
>>
>> Only to fuckwits that don’t have a clue about the difference
>> between a not guilty verdict and the jury not being able to
>> agree if the defendant is guilty or innocent.
>
> ** Never the job of any criminal jury - you lying fuckwit.
>
> FYI :
>
> The jury must have *no doubt* about guilt based on the evidence presented.
> The accused may or may not be innocent, that is irrelevant.
>
> The DPP having several goes at manipulating evidence , learning from each attempt to get a guilty result is DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
>

That is not what double jeopardy is. Double jeopardy is the principle
that you cannot be retried for a crime for which you have been acquitted.

de Belin has not been acquitted of four charges, so can be re-tried on
those.

Max the Leb fucking TROLL arsehole

===============================
>>
> > The DPP having several goes at manipulating evidence,
>> learning from each attempt to get a guilty result is DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
> >
> That is not what double jeopardy is.
>

** It most certainly FUCKING IS !!!!

FYI to all:

Max's IQ is too low for him to remember to wipe his fat arse after taking a shit.

...... Phil