Scott Watson links

**dangerous** · 25th August 2010, 06:03

Originally Posted by Toaster

So you can mind read now? I am an ex cop - I take anything I hear with a grain of salt. FACTS and nothing else. Beyond reasonable doubt and open tested trial.

If you kids are that worried about it why havent you put your money where your mouths are like Karam did and taken it to the supreme court?

settle pettle... "us kids" are just a bunch a motorcyclists nattering about an off topic subject bouncing our thoughts off each other, 'money and mouth' thats as silly as convicting some one with no bodys.

Ex cop, makes sence you are trained to look at every thing and every one suspisiously, to find blame and convict and you always will, Im not that green mate, Im in the loop one way or the other to.
My post you quoted, wasnt nessarly aimed at you but at the black and white minded PC dogooder group that have little knowledge of facts.

**MSTRS:Me** · 25th August 2010, 11:57

Originally Posted by Toaster

... Beyond reasonable doubt and open tested trial....

And that's the crux of it, right there. "Open and tested trial"
Is there such a thing?
When the prosecutor wants a conviction. And defence doesn't.
Both will try whatever they can to achieve their aim. And it's up to the jury to believe one of them.
If the prosecutor doesn't like some bit of evidence, because it doesn't support his contentions, then he won't present it. Therefore the defence can't test it.
Trials consist of evidence, not facts.
There is a difference.

**Swoop** · 25th August 2010, 12:25

Originally Posted by MSTRS

And that's the crux of it, right there. "Open and tested trial"
Is there such a thing?
When the prosecutor wants a conviction. And defence doesn't.

With the crown having the "bottomless bucket" of taxpayers money, to hire whoever they desire to front for them ("experts" from around the world) while the defendant is not so lucky.

**marty** · 25th August 2010, 18:12

Originally Posted by MSTRS

And that's the crux of it, right there. "Open and tested trial"
Is there such a thing?
When the prosecutor wants a conviction. And defence doesn't.
Both will try whatever they can to achieve their aim. And it's up to the jury to believe one of them.
If the prosecutor doesn't like some bit of evidence, because it doesn't support his contentions, then he won't present it. Therefore the defence can't test it.
Trials consist of evidence, not facts.
There is a difference.

so how did the bain defence even bring in the suggestion that bain senior did it? it's unlikely the prosecution bought it up, bain didn't give evidence, yet they still managed to get it in.

trials consist of stories, that may or may not contain evidence - not facts

**MSTRS:Me** · 25th August 2010, 18:19

Originally Posted by marty

trials consist of stories, that may or may not contain evidence - not facts

That's what I meant....

**marty** · 25th August 2010, 22:21

Ahh but what you said first leaves the lasting impression...

**Coldrider** · 25th August 2010, 23:02

Originally Posted by marty

trials consist of stories, that may or may not contain evidence - not facts

Is that why the Bain house was so quick to be burned to the ground, so stories would prevail over evidence.

**Berries** · 26th August 2010, 08:27

Originally Posted by Coldrider

Is that why the Bain house was so quick to be burned to the ground, so stories would prevail over evidence.

The father did it. They kept that quiet.

**marty** · 26th August 2010, 09:10

yeah would be interesting to know who drove that. any possible evidence against david was destroyed, leaving the way open for conjecture and stories about dad to be able to be told with no chance of disproving or challenging them

**scumdog** · 5th September 2010, 12:19

Originally Posted by MSTRS

If the prosecutor doesn't like some bit of evidence, because it doesn't support his contentions, then he won't present it. Therefore the defence can't test it.

The defence will have had disclosure of all prosecution evidence.

The defence therefore can bring up any 'evidence they think will weaken the prosecution case.

**MSTRS:Me** · 5th September 2010, 12:32

I guess you'd be bound to believe in the 'honest integrity' of the prosecution...
The rest of us, I'm sure, will go on believing that the defense doesn't get everything the prosecution has, except that which will be used.
If stuff comes out after a trial, that the police knew about, but discounted, yet the defense didn't use it either, then the defense either didn't get the info or were poor at their job (unlikely in a high profile case with defense the likes of Ablett-Kerr, etc)

**scumdog** · 5th September 2010, 13:09

Originally Posted by MSTRS

I guess you'd be bound to believe in the 'honest integrity' of the prosecution...
The rest of us, I'm sure, will go on believing that the defense doesn't get everything the prosecution has, except that which will be used.
If stuff comes out after a trial, that the police knew about, but discounted, yet the defense didn't use it either, then the defense either didn't get the info or were poor at their job (unlikely in a high profile case with defense the likes of Ablett-Kerr, etc)

In MY experience it's a 'one-way' street with disclosure.

Defence get EVERYTHING from prosecutions that is even remotely related to the case (that Prosecutions MAY use).

On the other hand Prosecutions get NO information from Defence on how they propose to defend the charge.

Leave out any potential prosecution eveidence when making disclosure? - there's a good chance the charge could be dismissed, in any event it would weaken the the prosecution case.

My 2-cents worth, but then what do I know...