Cowboy Joe

We all have opinions. Some are based on better information and clearer argument. Just as you are free to challenge other opinions on this forum, I am free to challenge your opinion (but not your character). At the end of the day, we go to bed having had our say. What’s the problem?

Thank you for sharing the opinions of the foreign gun lobby media release dated October 1996. It suggests that some people warned that President Clinton was conspiring to introduce severe gun control laws in the United States using U.N. treaties as a "back door".

Two questions if I may ask:

Did Clinton actually make this happen in the US?

What has this (or the Gorbachev conspiracy) got to do with Australian gun laws?

Keith please take not of the words in block capitals

“The evidence SUGGESTS that in this case, this COULD only be the result of a complicated fall”
As Hamlet has said there is a big difference between declaring that someone is innocent and saying that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute.

”And contrary to what everyone is thinking nobody…nobody repeat nobody witnessed a fall. One policeman said he witnessed feet protruding from the doorway. Snip // Hurley’s story about a fall, to his policeman mate, was a crock of bulldust and intended to hide his cowardly and culpable action. His changing of his story indicates he’s lying to hide something.”

Keith
The first sentence sums up a matter of fact that NO ONE witnessed the scuffle and subsequent fall . the rest of this is just supposition on your part and just as valid as me saying there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. I challenge you to tell three different people the story of some event in your life and I guarantee that you will not tell the story the same way twice let alone three or more times over a period of time. Would that mean that you are laying? In fact if the story is told exactly the same way it is in fact more likely to be a fabrication
CJ Morgan said
“Hall's persistence in pursuing this point seems to have now gone beyond reasonable debate, particularly given his hectoring of Rainier, who is one of the very few Aboriginal participants in this debate.

Let's see what the inquiry brings to light, and give the personal and racial invective a rest :)”

CJ
I treat everybody the same in a debate and Rainier deserves no patronizing because he has claimed to be Aboriginal. It is I who has been consistently vilified by him clearly in an attempt to bully me into silence and in reality it is the very points that I make that will be the crux of any review or inquiry into this matter.

Keith

There is a problem of definition here:

Firstly, anyone facing criminal charges is innocent until proven guilty. When a jury is asked for its verdict it is not asked if the person in their charge is innocent or guilty, they are asked if they have found the person to be guilty or not guilty. A person may not be innocent, but still be found not guilty if the crown does not meet its burden of proof. The same happens before a magistrate or in a judge alone trial: guilty or not guilty: innocence is not the issue.

This is the approach that the DPP has to take: I did not see the word 'innocent' or 'innocence' in the press release. I did see a discussion of the evidence, and I recognise in the press release the outline of what the Crown would have to say to a jury, what the defence would say to a jury and what a judge would say to a jury.

On top of that there are the implications how both sides, and the judge, would deal with the issue of intent, as an intention to kill or severely injure would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt for murder to be proved. There are other arguments in relation to manslaughter that require a few more words than are available here.

You may want to take a look at the relevant law:

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/C/CriminCode.pdf

Contrary to the view that you wish to take, Hurley does not have to prove his innocence, it is up to the Crown to prove his guilt, and his intention in his actions. The fact that no-one saw a fall simply means that no-one saw a fall.

It does not provide evidence of anything.

I am not a lawyer, but I have spent enough time sitting in courts during murder trials to be able to see clearly how this matter would be dealt with in court with the evidence made public so far.

How could Claire declare that the injuries were the result of a 'complicated fall' when according to all accounts in the the admissable evidence no-one witnessed a fall?

How is that so?

I reckon the evidence suggests something other than a fall.

Yep my supposition is just as valid as Claire's supposition...but there is a difference she's the DPP and should not be making such a suggestion. She should merely be saying there is insufficient evidence to convict ... period.

people...

i understand that law requiers that all cells have to be monitored by video cameras at all times.

the camera in Mulrunji's cell was not turned on...

not enough evidence??

how conveniant...

There IS a recording of Mulrinji calling for help from his cell.
Hurley did not respond!!

Mulrinji was placed in a cell after his liver was torn almost in half and left to die while his pleas for help were ignored.

Justice needs to be seen to be done. I don't believe that one person has the moral right to state that the fatal injuries suffered by Mulrinji were the result of a fall on the stairs.

IAIN HALL,
I would suggest that you put some effort into researching the terms 'racist/racism'.

Indigenous Australians have just cause to be cautious, wary and suspicious of white Australians, particularly those whose opinions appear to agree with the continued marginalisation and demonisation enacted by mainstream policies and public servants such as police.

When Hurley faces court, not I state when not if, the evidence will be available to all, not just the private viewing of one individual.

Just think, without justice, Hurley might become your local copper. Be careful when walking up stairs!!