https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-24/carly-mcbride-killer-found-guilty/100215902

Upon hearing the verdict, Newson looked directly at the jury and said:
“Jury you have got it wrong, you have got it wrong, I didn’t do it, I am
innocent.”

He then adressed Justice Mark Ierace in an extraordinay outburst,
protesting his innocence.

"Someone out there has committed this crime and it wasn’t me your
honour," Newson said.

"Now I have got a big struggle ahead of me trying to clear my name."

------------------

The victim and the accused met at a drug rehabilitation centre, which
gives an idea of the circles the victim would have been in.

It's very possible the crime could have been committed by someone else,
and the defence gave the jury a number of alternative suspects.

There were no direct witnesses or scientific evidence to link any person
to the crime.

When will juries be done away with? The Pell case alone is enough to
warrant juries to be abolished.

Anencephalic Troll Max bullshitted:
--------------------------------------------------------
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-24/carly-mcbride-killer-found-guilty/100215902
>
> Upon hearing the verdict, Newson looked directly at the jury and said:
> “Jury you have got it wrong, you have got it wrong, I didn’t do it, I am
> innocent.”
-------------------------------------------------
>
> The victim and the accused met at a drug rehabilitation centre, which
> gives an idea of the circles the victim would have been in.
>
** And the accused too who is very likely a life long crim.

Denials like this are a dime a dozen by such crims.

> It's very possible the crime could have been committed by someone else,
> and the defence gave the jury a number of alternative suspects.
>

** Yaaawnnnnnn ....

> There were no direct witnesses or scientific evidence to link any person
> to the crime.

** Cos the body was not found for two years - fuckwit.

> When will juries be done away with?

** When will stinking wog trolls like you be done away with ?

...... Phil

On 24-Jun-21 2:17 pm, Max wrote:
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-24/carly-mcbride-killer-found-guilty/100215902
>
>
> Upon hearing the verdict, Newson looked directly at the jury and said:
> “Jury you have got it wrong, you have got it wrong, I didn’t do it, I am
> innocent.”
>
> He then adressed Justice Mark Ierace in an extraordinay outburst,
> protesting his innocence.
>
> "Someone out there has committed this crime and it wasn’t me your
> honour," Newson said.
>
> "Now I have got a big struggle ahead of me trying to clear my name."
>
> ------------------
>
> The victim and the accused met at a drug rehabilitation centre, which
> gives an idea of the circles the victim would have been in.
>
> It's very possible the crime could have been committed by someone else,
> and the defence gave the jury a number of alternative suspects.
>
> There were no direct witnesses or scientific evidence to link any person
> to the crime.
>
> When will juries be done away with?  The Pell case alone is enough to
> warrant juries to be abolished.

There was circumstantial evidence. Yes, the use of such evidence is
risky, but the problem there is the admissibility of such evidence, not
the jury. A judge alone trial could result in the same verdict given
such evidence.

Juries represent our last protection against a possible authoritarian
state. We should not be in such a hurry to get rid of them.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
==============
>
> There was circumstantial evidence. Yes, the use of such evidence is
> risky, but the problem there is the admissibility of such evidence, not
> the jury. A judge alone trial could result in the same verdict given
> such evidence.
>

** You well know judges cannot send a trial to a jury to decided unless he/she is satisfied a guilty verdict would be safe.
If not, the case must be dismissed.

Of course , no jury can be directed to convict.

> Juries represent our last protection against a possible authoritarian
> state. We should not be in such a hurry to get rid of them.

** True, cos the game is heavily weighted against the accused in most trials.

A non gullible jury keeps the prosecution honest.

....... Phil

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-24/carly-mcbride-killer-found-guilty/100215902

> Upon hearing the verdict, Newson looked directly at the jury and said:
> “Jury you have got it wrong, you have got it wrong, I didn’t do it, I am
> innocent.”

> He then adressed Justice Mark Ierace in an extraordinay outburst,
> protesting his innocence.

> "Someone out there has committed this crime and it wasn’t me your honour,"
> Newson said.

> "Now I have got a big struggle ahead of me trying to clear my name."

Just because some perp claims something...

> ------------------

> The victim and the accused met at a drug rehabilitation centre, which
> gives an idea of the circles the victim would have been in.

> It's very possible the crime could have been committed by someone else,
> and the defence gave the jury a number of alternative suspects.

> There were no direct witnesses or scientific evidence to link any person
> to the crime.

If there wasn’t, the judge wouldn’t have allowed the jury to decide
anything.

> When will juries be done away with?

Never, you watch.

> The Pell case alone is enough to warrant juries to be abolished.

Mindless silly stuff. That arsehole did the crime.

On 24-Jun-21 4:10 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> ==============
>>
>> There was circumstantial evidence. Yes, the use of such evidence is
>> risky, but the problem there is the admissibility of such evidence, not
>> the jury. A judge alone trial could result in the same verdict given
>> such evidence.
>>
>
> ** You well know judges cannot send a trial to a jury to decided unless he/she is satisfied a guilty verdict would be safe.
> If not, the case must be dismissed.
>

However, that just means that the judge accepts that the circumstantial
evidence is sufficient for a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt. It
does nothing about the inherent unreliability of circumstantial
evidence. That would take a change to the legislation, which I do not
see happening (soft on crime, that sort of politics).

Sylvia.

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 1:39:08 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 24-Jun-21 4:10 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> > ==============
> >>
> >> There was circumstantial evidence. Yes, the use of such evidence is
> >> risky, but the problem there is the admissibility of such evidence, not
> >> the jury. A judge alone trial could result in the same verdict given
> >> such evidence.
> >>
> >
> > ** You well know judges cannot send a trial to a jury to decided unless he/she is satisfied a guilty verdict would be safe.
> > If not, the case must be dismissed.
> >
> However, that just means that the judge accepts that the circumstantial
> evidence is sufficient for a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt.

** So the judge alone would convict the accused.

The only purpose of the jury then being to acquit if they like.

...... Phil

On 25/06/2021 2:56 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 1:39:08 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 24-Jun-21 4:10 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> ==============
>>>>
>>>> There was circumstantial evidence. Yes, the use of such evidence is
>>>> risky, but the problem there is the admissibility of such evidence, not
>>>> the jury. A judge alone trial could result in the same verdict given
>>>> such evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** You well know judges cannot send a trial to a jury to decided unless he/she is satisfied a guilty verdict would be safe.
>>> If not, the case must be dismissed.
>>>
>> However, that just means that the judge accepts that the circumstantial
>> evidence is sufficient for a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt.
>
> ** So the judge alone would convict the accused.
>
> The only purpose of the jury then being to acquit if they like.
>

The judge will only deem a guilty verdict unsafe if there is something
impossible about the crime based on the evidence. For example, if there
is indisputable evidence that the accused was overseas at the time of
the crime.

It is *not* the case that the judge is effectively finding the person
guilty when he/she allows the jury to make a verdict. That is absolute
nonsense.

Max the Psycho Wog SCUMBAG puked:

----------------------------------------------------------
>
> The judge will only deem a guilty verdict unsafe if there is something
> impossible about the crime based on the evidence.

** Fucking insane garbage.

> It is *not* the case that the judge is effectively finding the person
> guilty when he/she allows the jury to make a verdict.

** Yes it is.

...... Phil

"Max" <max@val.morgan> wrote in message news:sb3s20$1vdo$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 25/06/2021 2:56 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
>> On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 1:39:08 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 24-Jun-21 4:10 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> ==============
>>>>>
>>>>> There was circumstantial evidence. Yes, the use of such evidence is
>>>>> risky, but the problem there is the admissibility of such evidence,
>>>>> not
>>>>> the jury. A judge alone trial could result in the same verdict given
>>>>> such evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ** You well know judges cannot send a trial to a jury to decided unless
>>>> he/she is satisfied a guilty verdict would be safe.
>>>> If not, the case must be dismissed.
>>>>
>>> However, that just means that the judge accepts that the circumstantial
>>> evidence is sufficient for a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt.
>>
>> ** So the judge alone would convict the accused.
>>
>> The only purpose of the jury then being to acquit if they like.

> The judge will only deem a guilty verdict unsafe if there is something
> impossible about the crime based on the evidence.

Wrong, as always. The judge will also do that when there isnt
evidence beyond reasonable doubt presented by the prosecution.

> For example, if there is indisputable evidence that the accused was
> overseas at the time of the crime.

Mindless pig ignorant bullshit.

> It is *not* the case that the judge is effectively finding the person
> guilty when he/she allows the jury to make a verdict.

No one ever said that.

> That is absolute nonsense.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

On 24/06/2021 2:17 pm, Max wrote:
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-24/carly-mcbride-killer-found-guilty/100215902
>
>
> Upon hearing the verdict, Newson looked directly at the jury and said:
> “Jury you have got it wrong, you have got it wrong, I didn’t do it, I am
> innocent.”

Wow that is interesting. I don't think I've ever heard of a case were
someone found guilty proclaims their innocence.

snip

On 25/06/2021 7:53 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "Max" <max@val.morgan> wrote in message
> news:sb3s20$1vdo$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>> On 25/06/2021 2:56 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 1:39:08 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 24-Jun-21 4:10 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> ==============
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was circumstantial evidence. Yes, the use of such evidence is
>>>>>> risky, but the problem there is the admissibility of such
>>>>>> evidence, not
>>>>>> the jury. A judge alone trial could result in the same verdict given
>>>>>> such evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ** You well know judges cannot send a trial to a jury to decided
>>>>> unless he/she is satisfied a guilty verdict would be safe.
>>>>> If not, the case must be dismissed.
>>>>>
>>>> However, that just means that the judge accepts that the circumstantial
>>>> evidence is sufficient for a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>> ** So the judge alone would convict the accused.
>>>
>>>     The only purpose of the jury then being to acquit if they like.
>
>> The judge will only deem a guilty verdict unsafe if there is something
>> impossible about the crime based on the evidence.
>
> Wrong, as always. The judge will also do that when there isnt
> evidence beyond reasonable doubt presented by the prosecution.
>

The judge doesn't make a judgment about reasonable doubt. Reasonable
doubt is something in the minds of the jury, not the judge.

>> For example, if there is indisputable evidence that the accused was
>> overseas at the time of the crime.
>
> Mindless pig ignorant bullshit.
>
>> It is *not* the case that the judge is effectively finding the person
>> guilty when he/she allows the jury to make a verdict.
>
> No one ever said that.
>

Seems like Phil Allison is saying that:

On 25/06/2021 5:02 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
>> It is *not* the case that the judge is effectively finding the person
>> guilty when he/she allows the jury to make a verdict.
> ** Yes it is.

>> That is absolute nonsense.
>
> Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

No straw man. It's Phil Allison.

Some anencephalic wog moron puked:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The judge doesn't make a judgment about reasonable doubt. Reasonable
> doubt is something in the minds of the jury, not the judge.
>
** If the judge doubts the accused has been proven guilty at the end of the prosecution case - he should stop the trial.
Grounds for this would be that important witness evidence has been contradicted by others or that witnesses are conflicted and hence non credible or that the acts of the accused are non criminal.
Assessing " reasonable doubt " is constantly in the judge's mind.
The jury more might have more or different doubts when they discuss the case.

...... Phil

"Max" <max@val.morgan> wrote in message news:sb8hc3$lfl$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 25/06/2021 7:53 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Max" <max@val.morgan> wrote in message
>> news:sb3s20$1vdo$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>> On 25/06/2021 2:56 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
>>>> On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 1:39:08 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 24-Jun-21 4:10 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> ==============
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was circumstantial evidence. Yes, the use of such evidence is
>>>>>>> risky, but the problem there is the admissibility of such evidence,
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> the jury. A judge alone trial could result in the same verdict given
>>>>>>> such evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** You well know judges cannot send a trial to a jury to decided
>>>>>> unless he/she is satisfied a guilty verdict would be safe.
>>>>>> If not, the case must be dismissed.
>>>>>>
>>>>> However, that just means that the judge accepts that the
>>>>> circumstantial
>>>>> evidence is sufficient for a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt.
>>>>
>>>> ** So the judge alone would convict the accused.
>>>>
>>>> The only purpose of the jury then being to acquit if they like.
>>
>>> The judge will only deem a guilty verdict unsafe if there is something
>>> impossible about the crime based on the evidence.
>>
>> Wrong, as always. The judge will also do that when there isnt
>> evidence beyond reasonable doubt presented by the prosecution.

> The judge doesn't make a judgment about reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt
> is something in the minds of the jury, not the judge.

Wrong, as always.

>>> For example, if there is indisputable evidence that the accused was
>>> overseas at the time of the crime.

>> Mindless pig ignorant bullshit.

>>> It is *not* the case that the judge is effectively finding the person
>>> guilty when he/she allows the jury to make a verdict.

>> No one ever said that.

> Seems like Phil Allison is saying that:

Wrong, as always.

> On 25/06/2021 5:02 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> >> It is *not* the case that the judge is effectively finding the person
> >> guilty when he/she allows the jury to make a verdict.

>> Yes it is.

>>> That is absolute nonsense.

>> Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

> No straw man. It's Phil Allison.

Wrong, as always.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:12:18 +1000
Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Wow that is interesting. I don't think I've ever heard of a case were
> someone found guilty proclaims their innocence.

LOL Long Bay Jail is full of such people!

James Morrison <nospam@gmail.com> wrote
> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Wow that is interesting. I don't think I've ever heard of a case
>> were someone found guilty proclaims their innocence.
> LOL Long Bay Jail is full of such people!

That was sarcasm, stupid.

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 19:24:08 +1000
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> James Morrison <nospam@gmail.com> wrote
> > Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >> Wow that is interesting. I don't think I've ever heard of a case
> >> were someone found guilty proclaims their innocence.
>
> > LOL Long Bay Jail is full of such people!
>
> That was sarcasm, stupid.

And so was mine, Roddles. Whoosh, right over your head.

James Morrison wrote:
====================
>
> >
> > >> Wow that is interesting. I don't think I've ever heard of a case
> > >> were someone found guilty proclaims their innocence.
> >
> > > LOL Long Bay Jail is full of such people!
> >
> > That was sarcasm, stupid.
>
> And so was mine, Roddles. Whoosh, right over your head.
>

** Hi James.

FYI:

In the 70's I met a fellow with the same name, " Rod Speed " .
The name stuck in my mind cos he was then a NSW highway police officer.

Speed - cop ??

The folk who introduced me told me about him.
The married pair lived in Ashfield, near me.
Also, he was said to live way out west of Sydney - as he has many times confirmed he does.

The Rod I met was a total fucking prick.
Low IQ, all bullshit and aggressive as hell.
Plus the right age to be a match - in his 30s in 1977.
Unusual name too ....

Not an unusual personality for a cop, the job attracts scum like Rod like flies to a fresh turd.

....... Phil

James Morrison <nospam@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> James Morrison <nospam@gmail.com> wrote
>> > Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote

>>>> Wow that is interesting. I don't think I've ever heard of a case
>>>> were someone found guilty proclaims their innocence.

>> LOL Long Bay Jail is full of such people!
>> That was sarcasm, stupid.
> And so was mine, Roddles. Whoosh, right over your head.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> James Morrison wrote

>>>>> Wow that is interesting. I don't think I've ever heard of a case
>>>>> were someone found guilty proclaims their innocence.

>>>> LOL Long Bay Jail is full of such people!

>>> That was sarcasm, stupid.

>> And so was mine, Roddles. Whoosh, right over your head.

> FYI:

> In the 70's I met a fellow with the same name, " Rod Speed " .

Nope, his full name is nothing like mine.

> The name stuck in my mind cos he was
> then a NSW highway police officer.

> Speed - cop ??

> The folk who introduced me told me about him.
> The married pair lived in Ashfield, near me.
> Also, he was said to live way out west of Sydney

I have never ever done that. I have lived in sydney
for a few years when I was at the bottom end of
primary school, but didn’t live out west then.

> - as he has many times confirmed he does.

I have in fact proved that I don’t live anywhere
near sydney and haven't done for 70 fucking years.

And that’s trivial to check using the electoral rolls.

On 9/07/2021 4:38 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>> James Morrison wrote
>
>>>>>> Wow that is interesting. I don't think I've ever heard of a case
>>>>>> were someone found guilty proclaims their innocence.
>
>>>>> LOL Long Bay Jail is full of such people!
>
>>>> That was sarcasm, stupid.
>
>>> And so was mine, Roddles. Whoosh, right over your head.
>
>> FYI:
>
>> In the  70's I met a fellow with the same name, " Rod Speed " .
>
> Nope, his full name is nothing like mine.
>
>> The name stuck in my mind cos he was
>> then a NSW highway police officer.
>
>> Speed  - cop  ??
>
>> The folk who introduced me told me about him.
>> The married pair lived in Ashfield, near me.
>> Also, he was said to live way out west of Sydney
>
> I have never ever done that. I have lived in sydney
> for a few years when I was at the bottom end of
> primary school,

Did you ever get out of the bottom tier of the education system
but didn’t live out west then.
>
>> -  as he has many times confirmed he does.
>
> I have in fact proved that I don’t live anywhere
> near sydney and haven't done for 70 fucking years.

Shit 70 years no wonder you're a grumpy old fart

>
> And that’s trivial to check using the electoral rolls.

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 04:32:36 +1000
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> James Morrison <nospam@gmail.com> wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >> James Morrison <nospam@gmail.com> wrote
> >> > Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >>>> Wow that is interesting. I don't think I've ever heard of a case
> >>>> were someone found guilty proclaims their innocence.
>
> >> LOL Long Bay Jail is full of such people!
>
> >> That was sarcasm, stupid.
>
> > And so was mine, Roddles. Whoosh, right over your head.
>
> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

LOL sucked in!

Come on Roddles, you can do better than that! How about the "steaming
pile of dog turd" response? <snigger>

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 06:21:07 +1000
Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote:

> And that’s trivial to check using the electoral rolls.

Why would anyone bother?

James Morrison <nospam@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> James Morrison <nospam@gmail.com> wrote
>> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> >> James Morrison <nospam@gmail.com> wrote
>> >> > Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>> >>>> Wow that is interesting. I don't think I've ever heard of a case
>> >>>> were someone found guilty proclaims their innocence.
>>
>> >> LOL Long Bay Jail is full of such people!
>>
>> >> That was sarcasm, stupid.
>>
>> > And so was mine, Roddles. Whoosh, right over your head.
>>
>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> LOL sucked in!

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
> Come on Roddles, you can do better than that!

Fools like you don't qualify for anything better than that.

James Morrison <nospam@gmail.com> wrote
> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote

No he didn’t.

>> And that’s trivial to check using the electoral rolls.

> Why would anyone bother?

It’s the proof that that fool never had a fucking clue.