Search results for query: *

Didn't hear this from me mate but Mr [redacted on legal advice] and Mr [redacted on legal advice] were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies and the baby smiled at me.

Why?

Stop replying to me then.

Yeah, but Steve the street cleaner from Frankston knows that.

Yeah but you said that in direct response to me saying he can be cross examined if he gives evidence in chief. That an accused can't be compelled to give evidence doesn't refute that if they choose to give evidence they are subject to cross examination. So what point are you trying to make?

No, that's indicative that he understands his rights.

Absolutely. It's highly probable they've found her blood in the ute they seized.

No, we can't conclude that at all. No, I don't think they are trying to allude to that.

More than their younger counterparts? That's the relevant question. You're right. I guess the criminologists should just pack it in. Jerks.

No, it indicates that that's the one that's been leaked to them.

No, it fails on the second element (the mens rea). No intent to kill when he strikes her with the car, and no knowledge that it was probable that death would occur by dumping her somewhere because he thought she was already dead.

He can be cross-examined if he gives evidence. Imagine a world where you can call a witness to be examined in chief and they aren't subject to cross-examination. Christmas every day.

100% agree. Well, except for the sexual aspect of it, I suppose. But that aside - it's not about sex at all.

Oh I get it. So the reason people sexually offend against children isn't because they're sexually attracted to children at all. It's all about power and control. I guess that explains why women are overwhelmingly the victims of sexually offending too. It's not because the perpetrators are men...

All else being equal, the preference is to dominate someone you like the look of.

That's immaterial if the evidence supports that the accused didn't know she wasn't dead.

No. They've charged him with murder because the state's position is that there is sufficient evidence to convict him for murder.

I was speaking to nut's hypothetical

If he unintentionally hits her with his car and then (believing she's dead) takes her elsewhere and dumps her and she then dies, he's killed her. But that doesn't make it murder. He hasn't intended to hit her with the car, nor has he dumped her in the bush knowing it to be probable that death...

Even if you're not off your head, people do all sorts of irrational things when they're panicking.

Taking a person to where now?

That's not consistent with the "deliberate act" statement or the charge of murder.

No Yes

Correct, which is not inconsistent with someone having been accidentally struck by a vehicle.

That depends on what you mean by "it". Police have not ruled out that someone was accidentally struck by a vehicle.

Yes it would. They also said "deliberate act". The deliberate act would be the murder of the deceased following the unwilled act of striking her with a car.

I got here late, who are we talking about? Someone doing commentary?

Sounds painful

He was running 48 hours after he strained it: https://www.afl.com.au/news/1074402/gun-western-bulldogs-midfielder-jack-macrae-sidelined-with-hamstring-injury