Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 77161	2007-03-01 03:08:00	What the jury didn't know -In the police trial	lance4k (4644)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
529040	2007-03-01 07:14:00	He lives down here in the Napier area about 2 doors along from a P house so I'm told.:stare: I knew about the other 2 being in jail. Trevor :) :horrified	SolMiester (139)
529041	2007-03-01 07:16:00	Previous offences are suppressed in all court cases in New Zealand and so they should be - you should be judged on the facts of the case you're charged with. Didn't sound like a convincing case from what the news media described but don't know because I wasn't there, like most everyone else on here.	Twelvevolts (5457)
529042	2007-03-01 09:12:00	Ditto 12V. The feminist bloggers will be having an absolute field day on this.	manicminer (4219)
529043	2007-03-01 09:31:00	Hell no, Previous convictions should be the first thing to be presented in a trial, Its an excellent indicator of someones character. No need to suppress anything with that much relevance. Its quite obvious the cops know there was a snake in there ranks who had attained an honourable rank and they went about removing him with everything they had, Pity it didn't stick.	Metla (12)
529044	2007-03-01 09:51:00	Hell no, Previous convictions should be the first thing to be presented in a trial, Its an excellent indicator of someones character. No need to suppress anything with that much relevance. I can undertand and sympathise with that opinion. But no-one with any previous convictions would ever get a fair trial, would they? I suppose you'll say, "they should have thought about that before they committed their first crime". I suppose you could argue about criminal methodologies. ie - if there were similar patterns, methods and behaviours associated with previous crimes that would implicate the accused in subsequent cases. But that's somewhat speculative and highly dependent on the particular case.	manicminer (4219)
529045	2007-03-01 09:57:00	Hell no, Previous convictions should be the first thing to be presented in a trial, Its an excellent indicator of someones character . No need to suppress anything with that much relevance . Its quite obvious the cops know there was a snake in there ranks who had attained an honourable rank and they went about removing him with everything they had, Pity it didn't stick . Yes - I think they call that approach witch hunting and would make the trial pointless as naturally people would be charged and convicted solely on their past record . Anyway as things stand - one of these guys was never convicted of anything and yet he seems to be presumed to be guilty . People shouldn't be considered guilty just because they're accused - people do make up false allegations . So we're left with what the jury thought who are the only ones in a position to judge .	Twelvevolts (5457)
529046	2007-03-01 10:15:00	How is it fair if behaviour that sheds light on the character of the accused is suppressed?, hell, If you are following the case in Wanganui at the moment half the people being put on the stand are being prompted to give good character reference for the accused. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned if you have a record it should be put forward as evidence of your character, Doesn't strike me as unfair in anyway.Its all on record, it all should be true, Its all relative. Pity the trend of a facial dot for every lag seems to have fallen out of favour in recent times. As for the jury being the only ones to judge, after the accused left court he stated his buddies (the convicted rapists) were top blokes, and in no way should they be where they are, which means he either thinks what they did was perfectly within their rights (im giving this twisted view the nod, People who want to be cops are screwed up to start with, a career in the force turns them into utter *******) or he thinks the Jury unfairly convicted them, Meaning the man at the center of it has no faith in the system that just set him free. I will stick to the theory that the cops smelled a rat, and that the smell was so strong they had to act.	Metla (12)
529047	2007-03-01 10:27:00	He could logically think the first jury got it wrong and still believe the jury system is the best system we can come up with . The jury system ain't perfect - it's just better than an angry lynch mob (unless you're one of the lynch mob of course, in which case you would make up your mind before hearing the evidence) . Personally I think Peter Ellis is innocent - but he got on the wrong side of a witch hunt and look what happened to him .	Twelvevolts (5457)
529048	2007-03-01 10:43:00	Ok, Did they bring up the fact in his trial that he had no history of molesting children? I thing he is probally innocent as well, Though my opinion on that case carries the same amount of weight as my opinion of the Police rapists.	Metla (12)
529049	2007-03-02 08:56:00	Ok, Did they bring up the fact in his trial that he had no history of molesting children? I thing he is probally innocent as well, Though my opinion on that case carries the same amount of weight as my opinion of the Police rapists. Telling people about previous sex convictions would merely set the accused up for conviction before the trial started. Depends whether you believe someone should be innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent.	Twelvevolts (5457)
1 2 3