https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/reactions-to-silk-miller-murder-verdict-c-7485365
Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all the time spent in
the slammer? And who pays?

On 14-July-22 12:12 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
> https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/reactions-to-silk-miller-murder-verdict-c-7485365
> Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all the time spent in
> the slammer? And who pays?

Given the level of police and prosecutorial misconduct, I expect that he
will be compensated. Who pays? The tax payer of course.

Sylvia.

Peter Jason wrote:
===============
> https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/reactions-to-silk-miller-murder-verdict-c-7485365
>
> Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all the time spent in
> the slammer?
>

** No.

......... Phil

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

> https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/reactions-to-silk-miller-murder-verdict-c-7485365

> Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all the time spent in the
> slammer?

That is up to the govt. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont,
basically it depends on how likely it is that he didn't do the crime
and if it is likely he just got off because the evidence for a conviction
is lacking and the govt believes that he did actually do the crime.

> And who pays?

The govt, stupid.

Ex Speed Cop Rod Speed wrote:
=========================
>
> > Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all the time spent in the
> > slammer?
>
> That is up to the govt. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont,
> basically it depends on how likely it is that he didn't do the crime
> and if it is likely he just got off because the evidence for a conviction
> is lacking
>

** The judge ( at the retrial ) had to believe there was sufficient evidence for a jury to convict.

> and the govt believes that he did actually do the crime.

** He is now facing 10 counts of armed robbery.
20 years jail would not be excessive for that.

...... Phil

On 14/07/2022 3:48 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>
>> https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/reactions-to-silk-miller-murder-verdict-c-7485365
>>
>
>> Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all the time spent in
>> the slammer?
>
> That is up to the govt. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont,
> basically it depends on how likely it is that he didn't do the crime
> and if it is likely he just got off because the evidence for a conviction
> is lacking and the govt believes that he did actually do the crime.
>

Did he get off on a technicality?

Does the Attorney-General have the power to made that a consideration
when he decides whether to compensate?

>> And who pays?
>
> The govt, stupid.

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

>>> Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all the time spent in
>>> the slammer?

>> That is up to the govt. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont,
>> basically it depends on how likely it is that he didn't do the crime
>> and if it is likely he just got off because the evidence for a
>> conviction is lacking

> The judge ( at the retrial )

Is completely irrelevant to whether the crim will get compensation.

> had to believe there was sufficient evidence for a jury to convict.

In fact the judge appears to believe that the cops cooked up some evidence.

>> and the govt believes that he did actually do the crime.

> He is now facing 10 counts of armed robbery.
> 20 years jail would not be excessive for that.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

>>> https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/reactions-to-silk-miller-murder-verdict-c-7485365

>>> Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all the time spent in
>>> the slammer?

>> That is up to the govt. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont,
>> basically it depends on how likely it is that he didn't do the crime
>> and if it is likely he just got off because the evidence for a
>> conviction
>> is lacking and the govt believes that he did actually do the crime.

> Did he get off on a technicality?

Nope, the judge appears to believe that the cops cooked up some evidence.

> Does the Attorney-General have the power to made that aconsideration
> when he decides whether to compensate?

What matters as far as compensation is concerned is whether
the govt, not just the AG, believes that he did the crime.

>>> And who pays?

>> The govt, stupid.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 15:48:52 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>
>> https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/reactions-to-silk-miller-murder-verdict-c-7485365
>
>> Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all the time spent in the
>> slammer?
>
>That is up to the govt. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont,
>basically it depends on how likely it is that he didn't do the crime
>and if it is likely he just got off because the evidence for a conviction
>is lacking and the govt believes that he did actually do the crime.
>
>> And who pays?
>
>The govt, stupid.

The government is notoriously stupid, and I thought the police might
have insurance for this sort of thing, as do doctors. Why should we,
the pooor suffering taxpayer have to pay? Australopithecine!

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

>>> https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/reactions-to-silk-miller-murder-verdict-c-7485365

>>> Now freed, will the crim get compensationfor all the time spent in
>>> the slammer?

>> That is up to the govt. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont,
>> basically it depends on how likely it is that he didn't do the crime
>> and if it is likely he just got off because the evidence for a
>> conviction
>> is lacking and the govt believes that he dird actually do the crime.

>>> And who pays?

>> The govt, stupid.

> The government is notoriously stupid,

Not with stuff like that.

> and I thought the police might have insurance for this sort of thing,

No they don't and even if they did, the premiums would cost more than the
payouts, stupid.

> as do doctors.

> Why should we, the pooor suffering taxpayer have to pay?

There is no one else that can ever pay that sort of thing, stupid.

> Australopithecine!

Wogopithecine in your case, stupid.

Ex Speed Cop, Rod Speed wrote:
=========================
>
> >>> Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all the time spent in
> >>> the slammer?
>
> >> That is up to the govt. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont,
> >> basically it depends on how likely it is that he didn't do the crime
> >> and if it is likely he just got off because the evidence for a
> >> conviction is lacking
>
> > The judge ( at the retrial )
>
> Is completely irrelevant to whether the crim will get compensation.

** Fraid it is clearly VERY relevant.

The JUDGE had to believe there was sufficient evidence for a jury to convict.
============================================================

> In fact the judge appears to believe that the cops cooked up some evidence.

** Irrelevant to the RETRIAL - fuckwit

He is now facing 10 counts of armed robbery.
20 years jail would not be excessive COMPENSATION for that.

............. Phil

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

>> >>> Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all the time spent in
>> >>> the slammer?
>>
>> >> That is up to the govt. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont,
>> >> basically it depends on how likely it is that he didn't do the crime
>> >> and if it is likely he just got off because the evidence for a
>> >> conviction is lacking
>>
>> > The judge ( at the retrial )
>>
>> Is completely irrelevant to whether the crim will get compensation.

> Fraid it is clearly VERY relevant.

Not to where the crim gets any compo, fuckwit.

> The JUDGE had to believe there was sufficient evidence for a jury to
> convict.

Completely irrelevant to whether the crim will get compensation.

>> In fact the judge appears to believe that the cops cooked up some
>> evidence.

> Irrelevant to the RETRIAL

Completely relevant to whether the crim will get compensation.

Ex-Cop Raving Nut Case Rod Speed wrote
=================================
>
> >> >>> Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all the time spent in
> >> >>> the slammer?
> >>
> >> >> That is up to the govt. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont,
> >> >> basically it depends on how likely it is that he didn't do the crime
> >> >> and if it is likely he just got off because the evidence for a
> >> >> conviction is lacking
> >>
> >> > The judge ( at the retrial )
> >>
> >> Is completely irrelevant to whether the crim will get compensation.
> > Fraid it is clearly VERY relevant.
> Not to where the crim gets any compo, fuckwit.

** No - it is entirely relevant.

> > The JUDGE had to believe there was sufficient evidence for a jury to
> > convict.
> Completely irrelevant to whether the crim will get compensation.

** No - it is entirely relevant.

> >> In fact the judge appears to believe that the cops cooked up some
> >> evidence.
> > Irrelevant to the RETRIAL
>
> Completely relevant to whether the crim will get compensation.

** No - it is entirely relevant.

FOAD you asinine POS.

On 15/07/2022 4:59 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>
>>>> https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/reactions-to-silk-miller-murder-verdict-c-7485365
>>>>
>
>>>> Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all the time spent in
>>>> the slammer?
>
>>>  That is up to the govt. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont,
>>> basically it depends on how likely it is that he didn't do the crime
>>> and if it is likely he just got off because the evidence for a
>>> conviction
>>> is lacking and the govt believes that he did actually do the crime.
>
>> Did he get off on a technicality?
>
> Nope, the judge appears to believe that the cops cooked up some evidence.
>

There was a re-trial, and a jury acquitted the man, not a judge.

>> Does the Attorney-General have the power to made that aconsideration
>> when he decides whether to compensate?
>
> What matters as far as compensation is concerned is whether
> the govt, not just the AG, believes that he did the crime.
>

It shouldn't be up to the government to determine whether he did the
crime. That is determined by the courts.

If he is sentenced to jail, for the armed robbery charges, then time
already served will mean he doesn't have to go to jail again.

>>>> And who pays?
>
>>>  The govt, stupid.

Max the Idiot TRoll wrote:
====================
>
> >
> > What matters as far as compensation is concerned is whether
> > the govt, not just the AG, believes that he did the crime.
> >
> It shouldn't be up to the government to determine whether he did the
> crime. That is determined by the courts.
>

** The police do that first, then present their (often dodgy) evidence to a court.
The judge decides whether to send the decision to a jury ONLY if he considers a conviction would be safe.
The jury then decides, after reviewing all evidence, if there is reasonable doubt or not.
No-one actually decides if the accused is innocent.

On rare occasions, if the govt considers the police and the court got it wrong, the accused can be released.
Happened to Lindy Chamberlain.

However, a jury acquittal is NOT grounds for compensation for either time spent in jail or legal expenses.
Criminal law enforcement is a very cruel business.

....... Phil

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> On 15/07/2022 4:59 am, Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

>>>>> https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/reactions-to-silk-miller-murder-verdict-c-7485365

>>>>> Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all the time spent in
>>>>> the slammer?

>>>> That is up to the govt. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont,
>>>> basically it depends on how likely it is that he didn't do the crime
>>>> and if it is likely he just got off because the evidence for a
>>>> conviction
>>>> is lacking and the govt believes that he did actually do the crime.

>>> Did he get off on a technicality?

>> Nope, the judge appears to believe that the cops cooked up some
>> evidence.

> There was a re-trial, and a jury acquitted the man, not a judge.

Irrelevant to what the judge believes.

>>> Does the Attorney-General have the power to made that aconsideration
>>> when he decides whether to compensate?

>> What matters as far as compensation is concerned is whether
>> the govt, not just the AG, believes that he did the crime.

> It shouldn't be up to the government to determine whetherhe did the
> crime. That is determined by the courts.

But it is up to the govt to determine whether it pays him any compensation.

> If he is sentenced to jail, for the armed robbery charges, thentime
> already served will mean he doesn't have to go to jail again.

Irrelevant to whether he gets any compensation.

>>>>> And who pays?

>>>> The govt, stupid.

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

>> >> >>> Now freed, will the crim get compensation for all>> >>> the time
>> spent in the slammer?
>> >>
>> >> >> That is up to the govt. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont,
>> >> >> basically it depends on how likely it is that he didn't do the
>> crime
>> >> >> and if it is likely he just got off because the evidence for a
>> >> >> conviction is lacking
>> >>
>> >> > The judge ( at the retrial )
>> >>
>> >> Is completely irrelevant to whether the crim will get compensation.
>> > Fraid it is clearly VERY relevant.

>> Not to where the crim gets any compo, fuckwit.

>> > The JUDGE had to believe there was sufficient evidence for a jury to
>> > convict.

>> Completely irrelevant to whether the crim will get compensation.

>> >> In fact the judge appears to believe that the cops cooked up some
>> >> evidence.

>> > Irrelevant to the RETRIAL

>> Completely relevant to whether the crim will get compensation.

Whoops, none of your shit survives, wota surprise.