Manase D Day

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Manlybruv said:
It is looking likely that he will be not guilty in the eyes of the jury, but I will find it hard to overcome my thoughts on the matter when he puts on that jersey. Even if he was not the attacker, the video suggests that it was planned between the group.
Click to expand...
There is so much we don't know about the incident, which is probably because of scattered reporting. For example: Did the police ever locate the knife? Why was there a second fight? I gather there was a dispute over unpaid money between Big Buck and a person at the dance, which resulted in Big Buck and a friend being escorted out. But the second, more serious fight, did not involve the person who allegedly owed the money. It involved two of the Church leaders who had kicked the pair out of the dance...? Manase alleges he entered the church grounds to convince the "money defaulter" to pay up; he had no dispute with the two church leaders, they didn't know who he was, he wasn't in the original fight .... so how did he become involved in the second brawl?
 
The Who said:
There is so much we don't know about the incident, which is probably because of scattered reporting. For example: Did the police ever locate the knife? Why was there a second fight? I gather there was a dispute over unpaid money between Big Buck and a person at the dance, which resulted in Big Buck and a friend being escorted out. But the second, more serious fight, did not involve the person who allegedly owed the money. It involved two of the Church leaders who had kicked the pair out of the dance...? Manase alleges he entered the church grounds to convince the "money defaulter" to pay up; he had no dispute with the two church leaders, they didn't know who he was, he wasn't in the original fight .... so how did he become involved in the second brawl?
Click to expand...
The thing that astounds me, as a complete novice when it comes to legal stuff, is how there were four or five of them in the Manase group and, seemingly, none of them were called to give evidence by either side.
 
Budgewoi Eagle said:
The thing that astounds me, as a complete novice when it comes to legal stuff, is how there were four or five of them in the Manase group and, seemingly, none of them were called to give evidence by either side.
Click to expand...
Yes. Particularly the prosecution who would have been able to make each of them squirm, and possibly lead to the truth coming out. The jury must know that one of the group had the knife.
 
Budgewoi Eagle said:
The thing that astounds me, as a complete novice when it comes to legal stuff, is how there were four or five of them in the Manase group and, seemingly, none of them were called to give evidence by either side.
Click to expand...
Guess work here, but if it is true that one of them previously admitted and recanted, which I have no idea and isn't subject to evidence, that witness could be more damaging to both sides so would be a huge risk to call them.
If the defense call him, there's every chance he says "nah mate it was Fainu who did it" and there goes the case. The prosecution calls him to say that and all of a sudden his previous confession starts to get put into evidence or comes up in questioning and all of a sudden there is reasonable doubt and the prosecution case is over and done with.

There is more risk than benefit from both sides, unless one of them was going to say another person did it, or they could absolutely place Fainu away from the incident at the time the stabbing happened, then the defense should not risk it, because its a simple thing for the prosecutor to say "so you didn't see who did it? and if the answer is "no" then you just start saying, so it could have been fainu?, he was first over the fence both times, he was there, we have other people that said he was there"

Likewise there is no benefit for the prosecution, they all can say come in and say no Fainu didn't do it, he wasn't in the actual fight, I don't know who it was but he was backing away from the fight and jumped over the fence first" and all of a sudden you have reasonable doubt.

My opinion only based on a my long career of legal studies year 9 - 12 so take it with a grain of salt but thats how I read it
 
Dan said:
Guess work here, but if it is true that one of them previously admitted and recanted, which I have no idea and isn't subject to evidence, that witness could be more damaging to both sides so would be a huge risk to call them.
If the defense call him, there's every chance he says "nah mate it was Fainu who did it" and there goes the case. The prosecution calls him to say that and all of a sudden his previous confession starts to get put into evidence or comes up in questioning and all of a sudden there is reasonable doubt and the prosecution case is over and done with.

There is more risk than benefit from both sides, unless one of them was going to say another person did it, or they could absolutely place Fainu away from the incident at the time the stabbing happened, then the defense should not risk it, because its a simple thing for the prosecutor to say "so you didn't see who did it? and if the answer is "no" then you just start saying, so it could have been fainu?, he was first over the fence both times, he was there, we have other people that said he was there"

Likewise there is no benefit for the prosecution, they all can say come in and say no Fainu didn't do it, he wasn't in the actual fight, I don't know who it was but he was backing away from the fight and jumped over the fence first" and all of a sudden you have reasonable doubt.

My opinion only based on a my long career of legal studies year 9 - 12 so take it with a grain of salt but thats how I read it
Click to expand...
That second last paragraph makes the most sense and could possibly put an end to any further legal arguments here. Let's just wait for the verdict
 
Dan said:
Guess work here, but if it is true that one of them previously admitted and recanted, which I have no idea and isn't subject to evidence, that witness could be more damaging to both sides so would be a huge risk to call them.
If the defense call him, there's every chance he says "nah mate it was Fainu who did it" and there goes the case. The prosecution calls him to say that and all of a sudden his previous confession starts to get put into evidence or comes up in questioning and all of a sudden there is reasonable doubt and the prosecution case is over and done with.

There is more risk than benefit from both sides, unless one of them was going to say another person did it, or they could absolutely place Fainu away from the incident at the time the stabbing happened, then the defense should not risk it, because its a simple thing for the prosecutor to say "so you didn't see who did it? and if the answer is "no" then you just start saying, so it could have been fainu?, he was first over the fence both times, he was there, we have other people that said he was there"

Likewise there is no benefit for the prosecution, they all can say come in and say no Fainu didn't do it, he wasn't in the actual fight, I don't know who it was but he was backing away from the fight and jumped over the fence first" and all of a sudden you have reasonable doubt.

My opinion only based on a my long career of legal studies year 9 - 12 so take it with a grain of salt but thats how I read it
Click to expand...
which all goes to show that seeking the truth has not the purpose of this trial. It's a game where shielding the truth can be beneficial to one or the other side.
 
The Who said:
which all goes to show that seeking the truth has not the purpose of this trial. It's a game where shielding the truth can be beneficial to one or the other side.
Click to expand...
I mean that's every trial though. Its the prosecutions job and remit to get a prosecution, it's the defenses to not have their client prosecuted.
 
Is it too late in the day to get a verdict? Most of the legal eagles I know don’t work past 4pm
 
Dan said:
Its the prosecutions job and remit to get a prosecution
Click to expand...
Technically the prosecutor's main role is to assist the court to arrive at the truth and 'to do justice between the community and the accused'. Of course the can argue forcefully to the jury about what they think the evidence shows.
And yep, the role of the defence lawyers is to act in the best interests of the accused, but again, must not mislead the court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Total: 921 (members: 3, guests: 918)

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
5 4 1 23 10
5 4 1 14 10
6 4 2 48 8
6 4 2 28 8
5 3 2 25 8
5 3 2 14 8
6 3 2 38 7
6 3 2 21 7
6 3 3 37 6
6 3 3 16 6
6 3 3 -13 6
5 2 3 -15 6
6 3 3 -36 6
6 2 4 -5 4
6 2 4 -7 4
5 0 5 -86 2
6 1 5 -102 2

Online statistics

Members online
3
Guests online
918
Total visitors
921
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Latest posts

Newest members

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom