I meant to complete my sentence above but a computer glitch - partly operator error saw me post it early.
What I meant to say is -

The police force does itself no favours in harboring the likes of Hurley - it creates the impression that his callousness is an acceptable and appropriate way of policing in the Queensland force.

It also implies that police are above the law.

Aka, the Police is above the Law and so are Politicians and to a large degree public servants. They are deemed innocent until proven guilty regardless of what has been done and whether they have been caught and their word has to be believed. Unless they confess how can you prove them guilty if they deny it? It is not in their best interest to confess, not when the system is set up to protect them.

The system is set up so that they can handle their own complaints, FOI applications and paper work without question or challenge. Regularly crucial documents are altered or go missing and they are not questioned about it and nothing can be done about it. It is seen as a mistake and not an attempt to cover up. Hardly any documentary evidence is admissable or able to be presented to Court.

The system focuses on discredeting the victim and the evidence - the accused is protected.

Those employed by the Government that do the wrong thing have to choose to confess to their misdeeds and misconduct in order to be held accountable and even then there are hardly ever any punishments. Since the punishments are non existant then it is seen as a waste of funds and not in the best interest of the Government to persue them. They dont care about what is right and wrong of about innocent victims. If they seek to come to the truth they are going to damage the reputation of the Government and their loyalty is with the Government so they are not likely to do that!. Protection of the Government is of paramount concern - no matter what!

Remember the Law is made by those in power to protect those in and with power.

”struggle and honour for Aboriginal people “

Well Rainier , Honour is not predicated upon “struggle” only a Marxist would make such a claim .

”What standards do you expect?”

I just expect civilized debate on the issues without personal attacks and invective

”• Is it my ungratefulness for your questioning of the moral integrity of Palm Islanders ”

I realise that you are arguing emotionally here but sadly the point of contention is about the law and that requires verifiable facts and that is all that I have said on the matter.

”Or is it my rebuttal of your silly arguments about ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ -which were just excuses to exonerate Hurley and his mates of doing anything untoward?”

You were particularly quiet when, I postulated that if it was you, who was being sent to trial on the same evidence that you cite against Hurley, was to face only a “balance of probabilities” proof. I bet that you would have your barrister moving for a dismissal so fast that he could not draw a breath. The whole point of having a standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” is to give ANYONE who is accused of a crime an expectation of a fair trail and that the prosecution should have to have more than a “feeling he is guilty” to begin with.

”But no, you declared that “there are NO reliable witnesses to the events in question.”

That is not my opinion but the opinion of those who have much experience in such matters given you claim such knowledge of the law (have you read section 41 yet?) can you tell us how Bramwell would fare under cross examination in a criminal trial ? The other person there has said that he did not see any of the events in question . Can you nominate any other witnesses? NO ? Well that means that the case is relying only on Bramwell. Imagine again it is YOU facing trial on this level of evidence; Once again would you not instruct your barrister to demolish his evidence

Cont;:-
To cite his intoxication, to cite his prejudice? So what evidence would be left before a Jury? The forensic evidence which is open to an interpretation of death from a tragic accident. The Crown would not be able to secure a conviction against you on such evidence and you would soon be down the pub celebrating with your mates.

”If you had read the Coroners report you would have been aware of policemen Kitching and Robinson, both mates of Hurley, who conducted the first two
interviews of note, WITH Hurley and Bramwell. “
Even with the relationship that you cite here the fact remains that any person has a right to remain silent and to not incriminate him or herself . Imagine yourself before the courts and the “evidence”
against you was what some one else claimed that you had said about the matter would you not, through your barrister, insist that such evidence is “hearsay” and should be ignored by the Jury? I bet you would.

“After all its just a black death in custody, not a homicide.”

Well I agree it is a death in custody and very sadly there is not enough EVIDENCE to get a conviction for murder. The reality is that even if there was evidence that Hurley had caused the death it would be impossible to convict on a charge of murder with out proof of “malice a forethought “ the best you could hope for is a manslaughter conviction .IF THRERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE. And strangely that is the important point here.

”You’re a wonderful example of how blind people are of their own benign racist thinking.”
Take a good hard look in the Mirror if you want to see racism mate.


The law is not perfect and sometimes the guilty will go unpunished but better that one hundred of the guilty should go free than any one who is innocent should be convicted on false or flimsy evidence , but that is an alien concept to the lynch mob who don’t care if their blood lust is satisfied.

What a load of crock that better 100 guilty persons go free then one innocent man go to jail.

What about the innocent victims of the guilty persons, now and in the future? When you set them free you re-victimise victims in a manner that destroys them as human beings and they never feel safe, respected or free.

One innocent man going to jail would be better than 100 guilty men going free.

Iain I think the point is not that the evidence won’t convict Hurley but that some bureaucrat has decided a jury won't be given the opportunity to decide.

I'd prefer the coroner's description of what happened to that of Claire's.

Why? Simple. Claire said there is not sufficient evidence for any court to convict. She also added the death was a tragedy and the result of a fall. Right?

Then you yourself say the Hurley won't give evidence, that the only other witness Bramwell is unreliable, and the evidence of the Policeman with who Hurley discussed the incident is also inadmissible.

Then tell me why has Claire decided there was a fall? Is it on Hurley's word? The word of the other policeman? Bramwell's word?

Since nobody witnessed a fall and all evidence of a fall is either inadmissible or not provided by the suspect then how does Claire know there was a fall?

Why has she despite the admissible evidence taken a jury's role upon herself and declared against all the admissible evidence that there was a fall?

Therein lays most people's horror at the DPP unilateral declaration of Hurley's innocence. It is not the way our Police and Justice system works. Public servant bureaucrats don't determine guilt or innocence and Claire overstepped her responsibility? My opinion of Hurley’s guilt is just as valid as Claire's guess of his innocence.

Obviously given the facts justice is not seen to be done.

The other horror is that Hurley has been promoted. It that fair? He is presumed to be innocent but no one can deny a mysterious death from horrific and uncommon injuries occurred when only he was present.

A Black Death in custody has occurred where none of the Black Death in Custody Inquiry's recommendations were implemented; in fact very basic ones within Hurley's sphere of responsibility were ignored. Hurley was the Senior Officer present. He is responsible. Has anyone anywhere investigated his actions in this regard? Let's hope it's not left to his copper mates? Like the initial investigation Eh Iain? Or do you hope it is?