New probe on St.Kilda rape

[PieNSauce]

Now when did I say the word "inconclusive"?

In the quoted post below.

If it weren't for the conflict of interest and the allegations of people up on high wanting the case put to bed, I would probably agree.

No, it's based on inconclusive evidence. And it's not an assumption, it's an assertion.

The allegations that led to the investigation did that.

If that were the case, we wouldn't be having an investigation, would we.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Irrelevant? You two pints are totally irrelevant.


Once again you make baseless and unjust attacks on Milne.

There is absolutely no suggestion that he accessed the information.


The issue here is about police accessing the information...not Milne.




Completely meaningless statement.

IF it had ever gone to trial Milne would have had ample time to prepare....and his lawyers would have had a very good idea via discovery by his lawyers of what would have been asked by the defense.


What the DPP is all about is Police inappropriately accessing the information out of curiousity and/or thinking in some way that they could make hereos of themselves.

The accessing of the information was not limited to those Police who are St Kilda supporters either.

Dude... let's get one thing straight. I'm not the one dealing in absolutes, you are. You have argued that the evidence going walk about could not have possibly altered the case presented to the DPP, and I'm simply showing you one possible way it could have. I'm not saying that this is how things transpired, nor am I saying that is have any evidence to support such a hypothesis. But unlike you, I'm also not about to discount them as a possibility. Considering the evidence did in fact go missing, and there was a conflict of interest between the St Kilda football club and the Vic Police, it would be extremely foolish to completely discount the possibility that Milne had in fact had access to said evidence. Once you allow for that possibility, you can no longer make the claim that the best possible case was not prevented from being presented to the DPP. Your whole case hinges on this assumption, and it's just been proven to be invalid.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

In the quoted post below.

Sorry, I misread your meaning there.

- Witness statements went missing.
- The St Kilda football club have a man on the inside.
- Unknown forces within the force were reported to be allying pressure to the investigating officers.

You might think that's a coincidence, but I don't. Whether or not Milne saw her statement or not, we'll never know. But as I said in my last post, it's possible he did. Given that possibility, it's not possible to assume that the case presented to the DPP wasn't altered in any why as a result of this missing evidence, when it's very possible that the reason the evidence went missing in the first place was to ensure Milne had the best possible advantage.

 

[PieNSauce]

Sorry, I misread your meaning there.

- Witness statements went missing.
- The St Kilda football club have a man on the inside.
- Unknown forces within the force were reported to be allying pressure to the investigating officers.

You might think that's a coincidence, but I don't. Whether or not Milne saw her statement or not, we'll never know. But as I said in my last post, it's possible he did. Given that possibility, it's not possible to assume that the case presented to the DPP wasn't altered in any why as a result of this missing evidence, when it's very possible that the reason the evidence went missing in the first place was to ensure Milne had the best possible advantage.

The point I was making was that you earlier contradicted my assertion that what you were making was an assumption. I'm simply pointing out that no matter how likely you may think it is to be correct, it is still an assumption until there is some actual evidence.

In the end, reading your more recent posts I see that you now address the issue and recognise that it is not an absolute or a given that this happened which is what I have been trying to say. I happen to agree BTW that there are a number of posters here who happily assert that there could not possibly be a case to answer which is just as much BS.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

The point I was making was that you earlier contradicted my assertion that what you were making was an assumption. I'm simply pointing out that no matter how likely you may think it is to be correct, it is still an assumption until there is some actual evidence.

I would say that the assumption was what I was replying to, when it was assumed that it wasn't possible. I'm not assuming it to be true, I'm acknowledging the possibility that it could be true, and therefore that assumption that the best case was put forward to the DPP is flawed.

In the end, reading your more recent posts I see that you now address the issue and recognise that it is not an absolute or a given that this happened which is what I have been trying to say.

I never intended to imply that I believed it was an absolute. It's simply a hypothesis that seems to fit the facts. I'm sure it's not the only one.

I happen to agree BTW that there are a number of posters here who happily assert that there could not possibly be a case to answer which is just as much BS.

I would have to agree with that.