Jack de Belin court case

[Bearfax]

He was trying to protect his mates.
It's a case of one young girl against a 'brotherhood'.

Conjecture, but seems quite likely

 

[40 years an eagle]

Do these type of "he said, she said" cases ever end in a conviction? There is almost zero real "evidence" bar security videos showing the "victim" in not so great a light.

Our legal system hinges on "reasonable doubt" and it appears nigh impossible for a "real" victim in these types of circumstances to be able to create that.

If "reasonable doubt" is the defining factor I would wager there are a lot of guilty defendants running around free after this type of incident...unfortunately.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Do these type of "he said, she said" cases ever end in a conviction? There is almost zero real "evidence" bar security videos showing the "victim" in not so great a light.

Our legal system hinges on "reasonable doubt" and it appears nigh impossible for a "real" victim in these types of circumstances to be able to create that.

If "reasonable doubt" is the defining factor I would wager there are a lot of guilty defendants running around free after this type of incident...unfortunately.

In short, the answer is a resounding 'yes'.

Evidence given by a witness under oath in court is indeed 'real evidence'. The point of a jury is to assess the evidence and frequently that comes down to assessing whether witnesses are credible and reliable. I've no doubt you are right and there are some guilty defendants who have been acquitted and likewise some innocent ones were convicted, but juries are just random selections from the electoral roll and people in general aren't as ignorant in the ways of the world as you might imagine. Juries are urged to use all their own life experience to assess the witnesses and evidence. The jury system apparently has been around in some form since about the 12th century but if you have a better system to propose let's hear it!

Yes the accused is helped by the presumption of innocence and the requirement for guilt to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It's a high standard (for which we'd all be thankful if ever wrongly accused of something) but don't worry, guilty verdicts are just as common in cases that have no CCTV, DNA, fingerprints or whatever else you were thinking of as 'real' evidence.

 

[The Who]

I wonder if a trial by a judge would be more accurate than a trial by a jury?
A judge/magistrate would be more attune to the deceit/reliability of a witness, the defendant's prior record, and the wiles of defence barristers than would the 'average' juryperson. It would certainly be less costly and more streamlined to have a judge hear all cases.
I guess the real negative is that a judge can be 'influenced', whereas that is far less likely when there are 12 sitting in judgement.
In a case like we are discussing it is easy for the layperson to understand the basics. But how do they follow a case involving fraud with all the intricate financial details? In my early career I used to report on certain court cases and I recall in one instance a juror falling asleep and his snoring causing a lot of mirth.
For those of you who have never experienced a court hearing it is nothing like the condensed, highly-charged theatre of movies/TV. For the most part they are repetitive bore-fests.

 

[Bearfax]

I wonder if a trial by a judge would be more accurate than a trial by a jury?
A judge/magistrate would be more attune to the deceit/reliability of a witness, the defendant's prior record, and the wiles of defence barristers than would the 'average' juryperson. It would certainly be less costly and more streamlined to have a judge hear all cases.
I guess the real negative is that a judge can be 'influenced', whereas that is far less likely when there are 12 sitting in judgement.
In a case like we are discussing it is easy for the layperson to understand the basics. But how do they follow a case involving fraud with all the intricate financial details? In my early career I used to report on certain court cases and I recall in one instance a juror falling asleep and his snoring causing a lot of mirth.
For those of you who have never experienced a court hearing it is nothing like the condensed, highly-charged theatre of movies/TV. For the most part they are repetitive bore-fests.

A judge is still bound by the limitations of the criminal justice system that requires a determination of guilt only where the evidence leads to a decision beyond reasonable doubt. Legally a judge cant be swayed by emotive issues and often a judge will advise the jury to make a determination on evidence alone, not on whether they think the person looks guilty, or be influenced by emotion shown by witnesses..

 

[40 years an eagle]

In short, the answer is a resounding 'yes'.

Evidence given by a witness under oath in court is indeed 'real evidence'. The point of a jury is to assess the evidence and frequently that comes down to assessing whether witnesses are credible and reliable. I've no doubt you are right and there are some guilty defendants who have been acquitted and likewise some innocent ones were convicted, but juries are just random selections from the electoral roll and people in general aren't as ignorant in the ways of the world as you might imagine. Juries are urged to use all their own life experience to assess the witnesses and evidence. The jury system apparently has been around in some form since about the 12th century but if you have a better system to propose let's hear it!

Yes the accused is helped by the presumption of innocence and the requirement for guilt to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It's a high standard (for which we'd all be thankful if ever wrongly accused of something) but don't worry, guilty verdicts are just as common in cases that have no CCTV, DNA, fingerprints or whatever else you were thinking of as 'real' evidence.

Thanks.
Yes, by "real evidence" i did mean CCTV, DNA, fingerprints. I have trouble accepting the word of defendants and plaintiffs as "real evidence".

I hope the judgement reflects the truth but I have my doubts it will AND we will never know the real truth..

 

[Budgie]

I wonder if a trial by a judge would be more accurate than a trial by a jury?

We once had a Toyota lemon. Everything wrong with it under the sun. Finally thought they had it fixed but was at the end of the warranty. We requested a six month extension on the warranty in good faith. If they were so confident in their repairs then why wouldn't they? Local management thought it would be a formality in sending it up the chain but head office said no. We took it to small claims court. Presented our case - page after page after page. Magistrate asked if Toyota reps had any objection to extension of warranty. They said they didn't. Then the magistrate (who was a seriously grumpy old bastard) said he could see no reason for extension of warranty and that was that. Even the Toyota people were aghast.
So if judges are as dodgy. I'd be wanting a jury.

 

[globaleagle]

The jury system apparently has been around in some form since about the 12th century but if you have a better system to propose let's hear it!

Judge Dredd

 

[Bearfax]

Judge Dredd

The rack, thumbscrews, waterboarding, the pulley, shinbone crushing, sleep deprivation, hamstringing. The Inquisition got results getting confessions. Who cares if it was justice though.

 

[globaleagle]

Seems the ability to sense a joke is weak in this one.

 

[Bearfax]

Seems the ability to sense a joke is weak in this one.

I was being facetious.

 

[manlyfan76]

I was being facetious.

Was or are?

 

[Bearfax]

Was or are?

Maybe in fact I am yet to be.

 

[eagleron]

Personally at my age I stick with Peter Sellers' line in Being There. 'I like to watch'. Not much else I can do these days. Its all just window shopping. Don't offer a pill. I wouldn't survive it.

When I was a young bloke the old fellas used to say when the subject of sex came up that a green apple and a good root would kill them, I never knew what they meant until now, lol

 

[wombatgc]

You want to know how the law can fuuck you over, then look no further than Trial 4.
Different country no doubt. The amount of systematic rorting
from the cops is staggering . The defence attorney in this true story is as an absolute bulldog (and with that hard Boston accent) makes her even more impressive.


Check out “Trial 4” on Netflix

Watch Trial 4 | Netflix Official Site

Charged as a teen in the 1993 killing of a Boston cop, Sean K. Ellis fights to prove his innocence while exposing police corruption and systemic racism.

www.netflix.com

 

[Bearfax]

Always said justice is what you can afford. And that applies anywhere.

 

[Tragic Eagle]

Justice means different things to different people. Its are rare commodity not always the outcome in our judicial system.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Always said justice is what you can afford. And that applies anywhere.

Ask OJ Simpson about that

 

[bob dylan]

Ask OJ Simpson about that

yep and I could name a dozen others.

money might buy off witness or accusations but I don't think it will affect the system here in Australia. Deals done out of court are a separate issue.

 

[bSw]

Money absolutely affects the outcomes in courts in Australia, just as in other countries. The more funds a legal team has at their disposal, the stronger their prosecution or defence will be. Unless a case is black and white, the party willing to spend the most will most certainly win the battle for the greyish areas in question.