Hookes Jury Still Out.

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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

I'd imagine he would be covered under the hotel's liability insurance. It doesn't seem like Hookes' wife will pursue the issue any further however.

 

[Qsaint]

I'd imagine he would be covered under the hotel's liability insurance. It doesn't seem like Hookes' wife will pursue the issue any further however.

The hotel, the security agency and their insurance companies

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16586650-421,00.html

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

But the jury thought it was undeniable that the evidence was inconsequential and therefore unable to convict.

Tje jury did not find that the bouncer was innocent though, they found there was doubt over guilt. You get a bunch of cricketers three parts cut giving different versions of what happened and a bunch of excitable locals and they are going to create doubt.

What more do you want?

If I was the bouncer, I would think the system works. As a member of the public who has known a bouncer with a massive ego on a friendly basis, I'd hope that the message to those types of bouncers is made clear .... Do not overstep your boundaries. We all know it happens, whether it happened in this case, the public will never know.

It was an accident.

The death was an accident. The punch was not an accident. He didn't mean to kill Hookes obviously but then a drunk driver doesn't expect to and doesn't mean to kill their victims either. It's still criminal negligence.

Get over your prejudices about Hooksey the person and consider the verdict of acquital (sp)

I have no preconceived ideas about Hookes, I am not South Australian, I am not Victorian, hell I wasn't even born in Australia. He was not one of my favourite cricketers, I did not listen to him on SEN etc etc etc. Therefore no prejudices exist.

What I do know though is you don't maintain an altercation 100 metres up the road unless you want to. Many bouncers won't accept lip from someone they have just ejected while the patron ejected has had his pride hurt and will mouth off to save face. The fact that several of them were ejected, there was bound to be some smart mouthing. Security personnel have the training and duty to ignore drunken rantings. Personal pride should never come into it.

As for the verdict, it shows that the system works. There is doubt, you must acquit. I certainly don't believe the jury was saying the bouncer was an innocent party in any way, shape or form. As they say, we'd rather set 100 guilty men free than send an innocent man to jail. This is clearly a case of that.

I hope patrons and security staff alike have learned from this tragic occurrence.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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.

That is not their job. If you are causing a public nuisance, it is a police matter. If that was part of the reason he was there, he has overstepped his boundaries pure and simple. You eject the person or people, you get them to leave the vicinity of the hotel, especially the exits so they can't impede other patrons and you return inside. Situation is diffused. Some patrons will yell out abuse to save face but if you are back inside, the situation is negated 9 times out of 10.

Anger is not something bouncers can afford to exhibit.

 

[jmerino]

This women,was separated from Hookes.

Not right lady, no nice at all.


He left you a long time before the night, he moved on.You were not in his life.You have no moral right to do this.Yuk.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

This women,was separated from Hookes.

Not right lady, no nice at all.


He left you a long time before the night, he moved on.You were not in his life.You have no moral right to do this.Yuk.

Oh, I assumed when she thanked everyone involved after the verdict that she just wanted to put it all behind her. How wrong could I be. I wonder if the civil case is more important to her than the criminal case.

 

[jmerino]

Oh, I assumed when she thanked everyone involved after the verdict that she just wanted to put it all behind her. How wrong could I be. I wonder if the civil case is more important to her than the criminal case.

Probably.Why would you sue.

He has been found not guilty.You may not agree, but its the vedict.

She seems to have a problem processing things and moving on.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Probably.Why would you sue.

He has been found not guilty.You may not agree, but its the vedict.

She seems to have a problem processing things and moving on.

Civil cases are different to criminal cases. It is not so much based on intent and evidence as it is on the balance of probabilities.

You must remember that he has been found not guilty because of the lack of clarity in the evidence, not because the jury know that his version was truthful. It's like the OJ Simpson case, found not guilty on criminal charges but the civil case was foolproof because the technicalities of criminal law don't exist.

 

[sarbbo]

This women,was separated from Hookes.

Not right lady, no nice at all.


He left you a long time before the night, he moved on.You were not in his life.You have no moral right to do this.Yuk.

sounds like she has no idea, he left her long ago. he was living with his new girlfriend and from all accounts was poking a few others too and she wants to sue, why? they didn't even have any kids together or dependents that he was responsible for.

 

[campbell]

i find this really distasteful.Hookes had separated frim this lady.He was living in a relatinship for 2 years.His divorce was due to be finalised the day after his death.

His wife in name only appears to be a money grabbing bitch.She is giving women a bad name.

 

[oxx]

Hookes had separated frim this lady.He was living in a relatinship for 2 years.His divorce was due to be finalised the day after his death.

His wife in name only appears to be a money grabbing bitch.She is giving women a bad name.

Water always finds it's own level...

I think justice has been served.

 

[The Legend]

His wife in name only appears to be a money grabbing bitch.She is giving women a bad name.

Heh. Can't wait to see what the Mistress has to say about it all.

 

[Kitty]

Heh. Can't wait to see what the Mistress has to say about it all.

seems to me that she is the only one in this with a bit of class. don't think we will be hearing anything from her.

 

[The Legend]

seems to me that she is the only one in this with a bit of class. don't think we will be hearing anything from her.

Exactly. I wonder if the Missus will write a tell all book about Hookes (which will probably confirm the defences speculation about Hookes' character).

 

[Nathan Ablett]

As i understand it, the wife is suing for 'future potential earnings'.

Given they'd been estranged for years and soon to be divorced, how can she claim that she is worse off financially now he's dead? I doubt she was getting anything from him in life, now wants plenty from him in death.

Smells, in a big way.