Hookes Jury Still Out.

[FIGJAM]

Official: Not Guilty.

 

[Lozza71]

Official: Not Guilty.

What a disgrace

 

[FIGJAM]

What a disgrace

Why?

 

[mellowyellow]

What a disgrace

And what evidence did you have that the prosecution didnt.

 

[Baby Blue]

They just interviewed Micevic (sp?) on a current affair. Had a feeling this would end in acquittal as soon as the prosecution witnesses began testifying...too much conflicting and unreliable testimony.

 

[Lozza71]

And what evidence did you have that the prosecution didnt.

Good one. So you think every jury makes the correct decision then.

I'm sorry but the defence team can make up all the excuses it likes but at the end of the day he hit Hookes and that caused his death. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but it must be man slaughter.

People should be accountable for their actions. If you resort to violence then you should get the full force of the law.

 

[Baby Blue]

Good one. So you think every jury makes the correct decision then.

I'm sorry but the defence team can make up all the excuses it likes but at the end of the day he hit Hookes and that caused his death. I'm not saying he is guilty of murder but it must be man slaughter.

People should be accountable for their actions. If you resort to violence then you should get the full force of the law.

He did get the full force of the law, he was charged with manslaughter and a jury listened to 3 weeks of testimony and spent days pouring over the evidence and decided unanimously he was not guilty.

It wasn't a matter of 2 or 3 jurors being unconvinced cause then we would've had a hung jury and he would've gone through another trial. All the jury agreed that there was reasonable doubt and they are much better placed to make that decision than you or me.

 

[goalpie]

So was he hit by an invisible fist then. Naughty ghost, when will mister ghost be brought to justice.

 

[eddiesmith]

He did get the full force of the law, he was charged with manslaughter and a jury listened to 3 weeks of testimony and spent days pouring over the evidence and decided unanimously he was not guilty.

It wasn't a matter of 2 or 3 jurors being unconvinced cause then we would've had a hung jury and he would've gone through another trial. All the jury agreed that there was reasonable doubt and they are much better placed to make that decision than you or me.

After the judge told them to say not guilty.

The Australian legal system is a joke. All you need is 1 person to give a conflicting version of events and you get off

 

[MSR273]

After the judge told them to say not guilty.

The Australian legal system is a joke. All you need is 1 person to give a conflicting version of events and you get off

It the judge told them that, then it was probably for a good reason - can you think what it might be?

 

[eddiesmith]

It the judge told them that, then it was probably for a good reason - can you think what it might be?

That lovely legal technicality of doubt, as I said all you need is 1 person to give a conflicting version and you get off

Just a quick question, if I go out and kill a member of your family the way Hookesy was killed, would you still have the same opinion when I get off?

It now means anyone can punch someone outside, have them killed when they hit the ground and get off

 

[UNIT]

That lovely legal technicality of doubt, as I said all you need is 1 person to give a conflicting version and you get off

Just a quick question, if I go out and kill a member of your family the way Hookesy was killed, would you still have the same opinion when I get off?

It now means anyone can punch someone outside, have them killed when they hit the ground and get off

Not it all. It just means the defence should think twice about sticking a lying pack of 'Hooksey' groupies on the stand.

 

[eddiesmith]

Not it all. It just means the defence should think twice about sticking a lying pack of 'Hooksey' groupies on the stand.

Doctrine of precedent would deem that if I chased someone down the street, claimed they threw a punch at me and I retaliated then I should get off

Or I could just pay someone to be an 'independent' witness and get them to create doubt in the minds of the jury

 

[Flightleader]

The right decision came in the sense that you can't convict someone on the basis of the population being sentimental to a public figure.

As sad as it is, it is the right decision. It won't bring him back and well from what I have read, it is just about the conflicting evidence about reasonable doubt.

It is done. Rest in peace David Hookes.

 

[Mrs Football]

He did get the full force of the law, he was charged with manslaughter and a jury listened to 3 weeks of testimony and spent days pouring over the evidence and decided unanimously he was not guilty.

It wasn't a matter of 2 or 3 jurors being unconvinced cause then we would've had a hung jury and he would've gone through another trial. All the jury agreed that there was reasonable doubt and they are much better placed to make that decision than you or me.

.... or poring over the evidence, even.

 

[la47]

Doctrine of precedent would deem that if I chased someone down the street, claimed they threw a punch at me and I retaliated then I should get off

Or I could just pay someone to be an 'independent' witness and get them to create doubt in the minds of the jury

Doctrine of precent applies to jury cases does it?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I would have like to have heard why he went up the street to hit Hookes. Regardless of unreliable witness accounts, I don't think that this point was refuted. Quite simply, someone tried to get one over on him and his ego wouldn't allow it. His job was to provide security for the hotel, he was not doing it when he punched Hookes. Sounds like the prosecution stuffed up more than being a case of the bouncer being innocent.

The civil case will be a sure thing.

 

[Flightleader]

The civil case will be a sure thing.

How can you be sure and why drag it out? What will it bring other than nothing. Who would the money go to? Who knows anything? It's sad but it is confusing. But the jury thought it was undeniable that the evidence was inconsequential and therefore unable to convict. What more do you want? It was an accident. Get over your prejudices about Hooksey the person and consider the verdict of acquital (sp)

 

[- PC -]

. Quite simply, someone tried to get one over on him and his ego wouldn't allow it.

Yes it was proved that Hookes ego couldnt or wouldnt allow some minion to obey the law.

 

[eddiesmith]

Ok then, the facts of the case from what I can gather are

Hookes was hit about 100m up and across the road from the premises

Hookes took a swing first and the ********er retaliated

Ok then, lets look at it this way. Someone has thrown you out of the premises, you are leaving and they are chasing you up the street, you have already been involved in a struggle with them and they are still following you. You are about to get in a car and leave and he is still there bugging you

How many people wouldnt have taken a swing at the Bouncer?

The Bouncer was outside his jurisdiction, he did the wrong thing, he instigated the final blows and should have been found guilty

 

[MSR273]

The civil case will be a sure thing.

It would hardly be much of a victory. I wouldn't think that the bouncer is rich enough to make it worthwhile.

 

[eddiesmith]

I dont know, sending the guy bankrupt could have a bigger negative effect on him than a couple of years jail

 

[- PC -]

Ok then, the facts of the case from what I can gather are


Ok then, lets look at it this way. Someone has thrown you out of the premises, you are leaving and they are chasing you up the street, you have already been involved in a struggle with them and they are still following you. You are about to get in a car and leave and he is still there bugging you

How many people wouldnt have taken a swing at the Bouncer?

The Bouncer was outside his jurisdiction, he did the wrong thing, he instigated the final blows and should have been found guilty

Self defence allows for a reasonable defence of yourself. He threw a weak punch from his non dominant hand . The jurisdiction issue I agree is crucial..but the witnesses all agreed on one thing at least...that the scuffle was a drag along affair and the bouncer may not have realised where he was. He cant just stop and say sorry I cant fight anymore.

 

[tomatoes]

Self defence allows for a reasonable defence of yourself. He threw a weak punch from his non dominant hand . The jurisdiction issue I agree is crucial..but the witnesses all agreed on one thing at least...that the scuffle was a drag along affair and the bouncer may not have realised where he was. He cant just stop and say sorry I cant fight anymore.

It's a residential area so if they're making considerable noise late at night, hotel employees should be telling them to shut up. And that is part of why he was up the street with them.

 

[Borgsta]

It's a residential area so if they're making considerable noise late at night, hotel employees should be telling them to shut up. And that is part of why he was up the street with them.

HAHA if anyone actually believes that they need to go back to the school of reality.