Ben Roberts-Smith, Judge says he is a murderer - Page 5

asagaai · 10-06-2023, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

You said it all, except he hasn't been charged and faced a criminal court.

He lost a defamation case, full stop

I dunno how many times I have to say this. The judges opinion in that CIVIL case means **** all in reality, it is just his opinion, full stop

You totally miss the factual evidence of witnesses, who after rigorous cross examination, were accepted in preference to BRS.

Now you can say the Federal Court Judge got his judgment wrong, accepting the Australian Special Forces soldiers and Afgans evidence over that of BRS.

But the evidence given at trial, in chief, cross examination and re-examination, stands, recorded, and transcribed onto transcripts.

Do you not understand the huge relevance of this evidence, when it comes to prosecutors considering whether the evidence adduced at the civil trial supports the prosecution of a criminal trial?

And you conflate the rules of evidence and admissibility of evidence with burdens of proof.

**aussiblue** · 10-06-2023, 04:21 PM

Quote:

I am not saying he is innocent nor I am sending him to the gallows like some would like to see. I will just wait to see what happens

So Trev 57 that actually means you are "sitting on the fence". But when i said I was sitting on the fence on the second page of this thread you questioned my rational.

**GasoLane** · 10-06-2023, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Facts those prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty

Trev you seem to forget that this was a defamation case where he had to prove he was defamed. Obviously the Judge thought that there was enough evidence to say he wasn't defamed.

Nothing to do with Guilty or not guilty, just whether they wrongly said things about him and according to the Judge they didn't.

And you don't really to need make three posts in four minutes when you could do it with one post.

**DJM83** · 10-06-2023, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

The factual evidence you crack on about means **** all until it is tested in a criminal court where the burden of evidence is far greater. You need to research a bit before you comment furter. Again I am not the first one to say that here

When these witnesses give evidence in a criminal court where facts are critical, not opinions. Where these opinions can be cross examined

You need to understand that there is people around and on here that know more than you.
Now you've just made yourself look like an more of an idiot

**DJM83** · 10-06-2023, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Oh, they have evidence he is guilty, wow, that will be helpful hang him

Please post where I have been factually incorrect

Did i say he was guilty?
Did i say there was evidence that he was guilty?
Maybe have a proper read.
Almost every post you've put in this thread is the same, like a broken record.
You know no more than all of us in here about what happened
But some people in here know more about whatever verdict has been reached/will be reached/law than you or I ever will. So maybe accept that fact.

**FairmontGS** · 10-06-2023, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

You're not a moderator

zilo · 10-06-2023, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

well said

The people who were there when the ALLEDGED war crimes took place have a right to comment, no-one else

Err...no...the law doesn't work that way.

**PG2** · 10-06-2023, 06:50 PM

... and this why we have forum rules that do not allow threads about certain topics.

It appears that the OP is no longer involved in this thread so I have no reason to keep it open.

**FairmontGS** · 17-06-2023, 10:18 AM

Roberts-Smith’s notoriety could spare him trial if charged, top silk says

Quote:

Roberts-Smith’s notoriety could spare him trial if charged, top silk says
Erin Pearson

One of Australia’s leading defence barristers says ex-soldier Ben Roberts-Smith could avoid ever facing trial if he’s charged with war crimes because it would be impossible to find an impartial jury.

Robert Richter, KC, said the level of media reporting surrounding the former SAS corporal’s alleged war crimes could mean that if he was charged, he could apply for a hold on any future criminal proceedings because under the Constitution, federal charges must be decided by a jury and not in a judge-alone trial.

Richter, a former chairman of Victoria’s Criminal Bar Association who has handled a number of high-profile cases including defending Cardinal George Pell at trial, said if Roberts-Smith was charged, “jurors from outer space” would be needed given the former soldier’s public history.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/robe...15-p5dgqu.html