Christian Porter

Remove this Banner Ad

Kurve said:
Louise Milligan was quoting the accuser's psychologist when she said she was "helping her come to terms with her feelings of sadness that she had not lived up to the enormous promise that she had shown as a brilliant young student."

It's in here: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/four-corners-air-part-two-of-expose-on-toxic-parliament-culture/
Click to expand...
Yes, and her evidence would be completely inadmissible in a court where there is no accuser, which is the point.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Anja_Nees said:
Yes, and her evidence would be completely inadmissible in a court where there is no accuser, which is the point.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Most of us understand criminal charges won't eventuate out of any inquiry but the police certainly can make the charges with or without a living accuser.

If there's a coroner's inquiry though, I imagine this psychologist might be called to give evidence.
 
Kurve said:
That's not true. Most of us understand criminal charges won't eventuate out of any inquiry but the police certainly can make the charges with or without a living accuser.

If there's a coroner's inquiry though, I imagine this psychologist might be called to give evidence.
Click to expand...
It is true though.

In a rape case, you need admissible evidence of a crime. If there’s no physical evidence, you need admissible evidence from an accuser.

It isn’t just that there isn’t enough to found a criminal case. There’s nowhere near enough to found a civil case either.

Standards of proof and rules of evidence exist for a reason, and you would have to abandon both to have any sort of inquiry into whether the rape was committed.

I have no issue with a coronial inquest. I have an issue with a parliamentary inquiry trying to do the job of a court when there is a good reason it won’t be brought before a court.
 
QuietB said:
That is not what you say though is it.

This us what you said - "Yes, and her evidence would be completely inadmissible in a court where there is no accuser"

That statement is entirely wrong.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. A journalist’s account of what a psychologist says was said to her is double hearsay.

And it can’t really be evidence of anything when there’s no admissible evidence of a crime in the first place.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Anja_Nees said:
It is true though.

In a rape case, you need admissible evidence of a crime. If there’s no physical evidence, you need admissible evidence from an accuser.

It isn’t just that there isn’t enough to found a criminal case. There’s nowhere near enough to found a civil case either.

Standards of proof and rules of evidence exist for a reason, and you would have to abandon both to have any sort of inquiry into whether the rape was committed.

I have no issue with a coronial inquest. I have an issue with a parliamentary inquiry trying to do the job of a court when there is a good reason it won’t be brought before a court.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make your earlier statement true.

It's great you have no issue with an investigatorial coronial inquest where the coroner isn't bound by the rules of evidence, you knew that right?
 
Anja_Nees said:
You cannot have a murder case with no evidence and no witnesses.
Click to expand...
Do you consider circumstantial evidence in a murder case as 'evidence'?

Do you consider a murder
with no body ever found,
no victim or perpetrator blood/DNA at the likely murder sites,
no murder weapon found,
where no-one saw the murder take place, or a body,
and the accused was not seen by anyone at the scene of the crime, or anywhere near the scene of the crime that night,
as a case with 'no witnesses' or evidence' (excluding circumstantial evidence I have covered in the first question)?
 
BFew said:
Do you consider circumstantial evidence in a murder case as 'evidence'?

Do you consider a murder
with no body ever found,
no victim or perpetrator blood/DNA at the likely murder sites,
no murder weapon found,
where no-one saw the murder take place, or a body,
and the accused was not seen by anyone at the scene of the crime, or anywhere near the scene of the crime that night,
as a case with 'no witnesses' or evidence' (excluding circumstantial evidence I have covered in the first question)?
Click to expand...
Sorry but your post doesn’t make much sense.
 
Anja_Nees said:
there were no witnesses at the time
Click to expand...
As far as we know.

However, maybe if more info was publicly released, and some form of an inquiry commenced with the scope to take evidence from witnesses to the time around the alleged January 1998 incident, any witnesses (if any exist) to the alleged rape that have stayed silent until now, might come out of the woodwork.
 
BFew said:
As far as we know.

However, maybe if more info was publicly released, and some form of an inquiry commenced with the scope to take evidence from witnesses to the time around the alleged January 1998 incident, any witnesses (if any exist) to the alleged rape that have stayed silent until now, might come out of the woodwork.
Click to expand...
Ok my final comment here for a while.

That is a strict hypothetical. If proper evidence emerged I would clearly change my view, but it hasn’t yet.

That said, if that evidence emerged I would expect the police to resume first.
 
Anja_Nees said:
Sorry but your post doesn’t make much sense.
Click to expand...

See the case of Sarah Spiers alleged January 1996 murder, and subsequent 2019/20 Supreme Court Trial (Claremont Serial Killer) of her alleged murderer (Bradley Robert Edwards).

Current - Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates pt3 - The Verdict

Here is - Claremont Murders - Part One and Part Two - Media - The Bunker - Hey Bret? Stalking Claremont the book. - Justice Hall's Decision 619 pgs
www.bigfooty.com www.bigfooty.com
 
Anja_Nees said:
Of course I’m curious, but I’m entirely uninterested in seeing it be used as a political football.


A coronial inquest seems the appropriate way to get answers, and it’s actually proposed.

I’ve seen no half articulately argued reason a parliamentary inquiry is more appropriate or appropriate at all. Only vitriol filled tripe and barely disguised political hatred.
Click to expand...
How do you see it being used.

Any enquiry into anything relating to a government minister will be, by definition, political. So, you are essentially saying, never enquire into anything that relates a to a politician, because the process will be a political football?

What a coward.
 
Anja_Nees said:
Well it’s the reason the police gave for discontinuing for a start, but it’s common ground that there is no sworn statement, there were no witnesses at the time and there is no forensic evidence.

You would have to have at least some of the above to get the ball rolling.
Click to expand...

Those same NSW police will strip search your children for attending a music festival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top