Things that make you go.......WTF? Part II

[stui magpie]

The little I've read suggests that the defense strategy has been to attack her credibility and recollection. Things like telling Wilkinson that he had removed her underwear then later admitting she wasn't wearing any and signing a $300k+ book deal with the bandana'd boofhead, Wilkinsons husband.

He declined to testify which means the prosecution couldn't cross examine him, so the whole thing comes down to does the jury believe her.

Risky, but they only need 1 person out of 12 (i think) to not be convinced beyond reasonable doubt.

[David]

Wouldn’t that mean a hung jury and retrial? (That is, if 11-1 isn’t enough for a conviction, which I think it may be.)

You need all or most to be unsure to get a not guilty verdict, don’t you?

[stui magpie]

You need all to get a unanimous decision, 1 dissenting can still get a majority verdict apparently, any more than 1 juror disagreeing, game over it seems.

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/ ... 7/s46.html

[Pies4shaw]

^ Isn't this trial being conducted under ACT law? I haven't been following it and don't much care but unless they've changed their law, I think they only have unanimous verdicts in criminal trials, there.

[stui magpie]

Not going to argue, from what I read it seemed to need a unanimous decision, I didn't specifically check ACT law so i'll take your word for it.

[stui magpie]

Check this guy out https://www.theage.com.au/world/middle- ... 5bsz3.html

[swoop42]

Jesus.

You could grate his knob and get enough cheese to cover a family sized pizza.

[watt price tully]

Check this guy out https://www.theage.com.au/world/middle- ... 5bsz3.html

Jesus, anti vaxxers go to extraordinary lengths.

[stui magpie]

Back to the Higgins rape trial, it's been aborted due to juror misconduct and relished for Feb next year.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/fede ... 5btei.html

Does this mean she has to go through the ordeal of testifying again or can they use her previous testimony with the new jury?

[think positive]

I believe they start brand new, have yo see the person answering for a start to gauge true meaning.

Well on SVU they always do! Often the Vic says no


Absolutely shit for her, just wrong poor woman.


-or for him if he’s innocent

Haven’t been following really

[What'sinaname]

^ yep, horrible ordeal for all parties really. If he's guilty, it sucks putting her through all of this again, and it he's innocent, then it's shit for him having to go through it again.

[eddiesmith]

I remember one famous trial recently where the victim testified first time and the jury was hung, but second time they convicted after they didn’t actually see the victim testify as it was either read out or just a video from first trial. Given it was later overturned may have meant in person makes it easier to read their reactions.

Not casting any opinions on this case, but it can obviously be an option to just reuse the previous testimony.

[stui magpie]

I seem to recall the same thing Ed, for some reason George Pell comes to mind.

And yeah, same as others, I'm not casting judgment. I believe that she believes what she's saying, but considering she was poleaxed drunk, how much is real vs imagined, no clues. Either way , having to go through the ordeal once would have been horrible for her, having to do it a second time is wrong.

[David]

[Dark Beanie]

And this trial has the added complication (for want of a better word) of intense media scrutiny and commentary.

The defence has also referred comments by Brittany Higgins to the media outside the court today to the police and court:

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-ac ... 6b72452a1b