Current Royal Commission into Lawyer X gangland convictions on tainted evidence & police corruption

Remove this Banner Ad

We'll see. :p

Considering Orman's served his 14 year minimum with a few extra years on top there might be a deal - no legal action and we'll let you out. As much as I'd like this kind of person behind bars forever. or to get the same treatment he dished out to his victim, it's a reasonable deal for police.

You're very confident he's actually guilty sprockets, in my mind now there is doubt.

Far as I can tell, all they have is Gobbo's evidence, a snitch with a less than honest agenda and some phone taps that on their own mean squat. He may not be guilty.
 
Considering Orman's served his 14 year minimum with a few extra years on top there might be a deal - no legal action and we'll let you out.

He's been consistent in maintaining his innocence throughout. IMO he won't be doing any deals, he's going to get a payout.
 
You're very confident he's actually guilty sprockets, in my mind now there is doubt.

Far as I can tell, all they have is Gobbo's evidence, a snitch with a less than honest agenda and some phone taps that on their own mean squat. He may not be guilty.
So that's more evidence besides Gobbo and the phone calls and there's more.

BTW, Gobbo made have given him up but her evidence is still evidence.

He's been consistent in maintaining his innocence throughout. IMO he won't be doing any deals, he's going to get a payout.
Shelly, Shelly, Shelly, when will you learn that "I didn't do it" is the standard crim line, so much so that they usually blurt it out before the cops even say hello. Don't make me start calling you fluffy.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Shelly, Shelly, Shelly, when will you learn that "I didn't do it" is the standard crim line, so much so that they usually blurt it out before the cops even say hello. Don't make me start calling you fluffy.

Water off a fluffy ducks back.

I happen to know the stats, most crims who flat out maintain their innocence over decades in prison and never buckle .. often are.
 
Water off a fluffy ducks back.

I happen to know the stats, most crims who flat out maintain their innocence over decades in prison and never buckle .. often are.
But when even the guilty ones say it it makes it not believable and it can be disregarded.
 
They risk the entire system collapsing.
With do many old archived media reports mentioning suppression orders, and magistrates excusing themselves from trials involving former clients one can only wonder just how compromised the entire system of jurisprudence was. It wouldn't be far fetched if the public were to wonder if there was a conspiracy to pervert Justice. IMO the only way to nail that bogey on the head and restore confidence in the administration of Law is not being taken by this Royal Commission. This means to me that we'll be revisiting this in years to come and in other jurisdictions over and over again.
Let's be clear. Capricious usage of Star chambers and dungeons led to the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, the English Civil Wars 1642-1651, the beheading of Charles 1st, the Glorious Revolution.
The the capricious use of executive authority to upsurptation of the rule of Law, and due process led to the Magna Carter 1215 & Bill of Rights 1689
If history teaches us anything, it's that public confidence in fair and equitable due process in Law is paramount to continued functioning of the authority of government.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
 
But when even the guilty ones say it it makes it not believable and it can be disregarded.

It can be taken into account if admissions are made through the sentence hence, absolute consistent and dogged assertions of innocence cannot be disregarded particularly in relation to this case where imo he could possibly have been convicted on an entirely manipulated and manufactured narrative.

It can't be said he even had a defence.
 
It can be taken into account if admissions are made through the sentence hence, absolute consistent and dogged assertions of innocence cannot be disregarded particularly in relation to this case where imo he could possibly have been convicted on an entirely manipulated and manufactured narrative.

It can't be said he even had a defence.
But it wasn't manufactured. There's been no question as to whether she told the truth, the problem is that she wasn't supposed to say anything. He's guilty, the only question is re how he was found guilty.
 
But it wasn't manufactured. There's been no question as to whether she told the truth, the problem is that she wasn't supposed to say anything. He's guilty, the only question is re how he was found guilty.

The essence of who she is and what she does is a lie, imo nothing she has said can be taken on faith. Paul Dale has accused her of lying and when we finally get to hear from all the people she deceived in prison, more of that to come.
 
The essence of who she is and what she does is a lie, imo nothing she has said can be taken on faith. Paul Dale has accused her of lying and when we finally get to hear from all the people she deceived in prison, more of that to come.
But there's been no question of her being dishonest in this case. If we now say everything she says is a lie then no-one can ever be convicted because everyone has told lies. I admit I wouldn't trust her with my wallet but you and I aren't the legal process.
 
Bateson on Gobbo in 2003 and the role she played in bringing down Carl Williams which he says was minimal. He did however, remove her name from his police diary notes.

Asked if he was concerned about conflicts of interest Ms Gobbo might have as she continued to represent other associates of Williams, Mr Bateson said it was not his problem.

"It was not a matter for us to resolve," Mr Bateson said.

"The conflicts were well known by the director, the OPP [Office of Public Prosecutions], the courts and I think the ethics committee," he said.

 
They are discussing the second ACC examination he has been subjected to. He was also called before the crime commission in 2007.

But it was more than one murder the ACC examiners had asked Mr Dale about this time around.

NG: So you're not being accused of Jason Moran's murder anymore?
PD: No.
NG: Cause at one stage they were, um…
PD: I, um, I took the contract to do Jason.
NG: I remember.
PD: I was paid $30,000 to do, um, find Jason and provide information to Jason's whereabouts and all that sort of stuff… that was put to me again.
NG: Jesus.
PD: Um, yeah.
NG: So you're a serial killer now?
PD: Yeah, yeah.
Police have never formally alleged Mr Dale had any involvement in Mr Moran's murder.

 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bateson on Gobbo in 2003 and the role she played in bringing down Carl Williams which he says was minimal. He did however, remove her name from his police diary notes.

Asked if he was concerned about conflicts of interest Ms Gobbo might have as she continued to represent other associates of Williams, Mr Bateson said it was not his problem.

"It was not a matter for us to resolve," Mr Bateson said.

"The conflicts were well known by the director, the OPP [Office of Public Prosecutions], the courts and I think the ethics committee," he said.

What a mess! And linked in there was the March report re other legals doing the same thing:

"... The scandal embroiling the Victorian criminal justice system widened yesterday with revelations the newly formed royal commission into potentially tainted gangland convictions will broaden its scope after police disclosed "further informants who held obligations of confidentiality" — including other lawyers. ..."


But it seems it didn't happen and the question needs to be asked, why not?
 
Bateson on Gobbo in 2003 and the role she played in bringing down Carl Williams which he says was minimal. He did however, remove her name from his police diary notes.

Asked if he was concerned about conflicts of interest Ms Gobbo might have as she continued to represent other associates of Williams, Mr Bateson said it was not his problem.

"It was not a matter for us to resolve," Mr Bateson said.

"The conflicts were well known by the director, the OPP [Office of Public Prosecutions], the courts and I think the ethics committee," he said.


"The conflicts were well known by the director, the OPP [Office of Public Prosecutions], the courts and I think the ethics committee," he said.

Sounds like Conspiracy to me.


Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
 
Was it a scheduled break in the proceedings or are we surprised by it?

I think it is scheduled. There were no hearings listed after yesterday. Bateson is up again on 30 July and I seriously doubt we will get to hear much of it.

For me it's back to speculation and trying to join the dots.
 
Last edited:
I think it is scheduled. There were no hearings listed after yesterday. Bateson is up again on 30 July and I seriously doubt we will get to hear much of it.

For me it's back to speculation and trying to join the dots.

Thanks, I haven't had time to try and catch up with it all. It's so frustrating it seems like hard work trying to make sense out of it all when we're blind to so much of the proceedings.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top