Mr Hall,

Why I’m bothering to even entertain you’re opinions is beyond me, perhaps because it’s Xmas and I'm feeling generous.

“you seek to conflate other events into the death of this man to establish some sort of dark culture of indifference at best or persistent evil at worst in the Queensland police force.”

Yes it is subjective but also based on personal knowledge and the experiences of other Aboriginal people, families and communities. Sorry for making you feel uncomfortable!

“Every death in custody is a serious matter but as some one who lives in Queensland I can assure you that the police culture that was evident under Joh has changed but the left’s propensity to assume the worst about those who serve their community in the police has not. “

Come to Palm Island, or Yarrabah or Inala or Cairns and I’ll show you a Queensland you never knew or simply ignored. I’ve lived here all my life Iain, knew the Joh era first hand, and actually knew Joh himself.

Have you read the reports?

“I realise that many people are arguing emotionally on this topic but the law actually requires us to consider the matter on variifiable facts and evidence.”

Well yes, it is emotional for me to see justice not delivered to the family of a man who died in custody for nothing. While you might not think an Aboriginal life is worthy of this kind of emotional response, many do, including THIS Aboriginal man. Sorry, it’s what human beings do.

But I do concede that emotional responses are not required in ensuring justice is served. So what's wrong with me and others simply saying we don't think it has been served based on the facts and evidence before us?

In my view it was the DPP who introduced this quip about'emotional responses' as a defence of her own incompetence.

In closing-

If all you want to do is engage in is a p**ssing competition then find someone else.

PS> read your bloggs, nothing original there either.

.” Sorry for making you feel uncomfortable!”
What makes me uncomfortable is people who have a chip on their shoulder who want to cherry pick aspects of the law that suit them but then wish to abandon principles like the standard of proof for a trial when that clashes with their agenda.
”Have you read the reports?”
Have you read the report in the OZ yesterday saying that that Hurley can’t be charged because of the way the inquest was conducted?
”. While you might not think an Aboriginal life is worthy of this kind of emotional response, many do, including THIS Aboriginal man.”
Why the Racist slur? Certainly we respond emotionally to things but the topic is the way the LAW works and that has to be on the facts, the admissible evidence otherwise NO ONE in our society can expect ANY Justice in ANY circumstance. The legal system we have is not perfect but the lynch mob “justice” suggested by some like yourself is far worse by many orders of magnitude.

”But I do concede that emotional responses are not required in ensuring justice is served”

I still think that you don’t understand that there is a difference between evidence that is acceptable under a “balance of probabilities “standard of proof and evidence to meet the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. Do the research and get back to us, any entry level law book should explain it, when you understand this point how about you report back then?

”as a defence of her own incompetence.”

Nah, she said that because it is a fair description of the response from the family and others like yourself who are using this man and his death as a vehicle for your own political agenda; to air past grievances. The actual causes of his death and who is responsible is clearly secondary to that.



”PS> read your bloggs, nothing original there either.”

Well I have never claimed to be that original but there is even less original in your blinkered and racist thinking Rainer.

Nonetheless Merry Christmas Mate.

Lets not forget that we are emotional human beings, we are not robots.

Jolanda, yes how true, we are all not robots, thanks

Mr Hall,

An informed debate, something you have failed to provide on your side thus far, about this issue requires an acknowledgement that, in any criminal trial, there would be simply no dispute about the fact that Mulrunji died as a result of an impact between his body and the body of Senior Sergeant Hurley.

Admissable evidence in front of a jury would examine for instance;

1.Why Hurley arrested and incarcerated Mulrunji- and the triviality of his "offence".
2.The deceased was then placed in a cell where he bled to death, internally. He had suffered a ruptured liver and four broken ribs.
3. In a conversation with another policemen Hurley said that he had fallen next to Mulrunji. Such a fall could not have caused the death-so what did?

If you believe none of the above are valid evidential points for a court to deliberate over then you know nothing about criminal law. So common, tell me which of the above do you think would no be admissable in a criminal trial pray tell? Just because the DPP let your man off the hook does not mean the principles of law have been also been washed away. The review now underway will hopefully interrogate how the DPP came to such a stupid conclusion, no different to the reviews conducted on her decisions on Hanson, Volkers and Singleton.

While you are trying to find some weasel words and logic to respond to the above please be informed that I did not use a racial slurr against you. I know when I'm in the presence of a racist, and you are one. No need for me to dance around the edges using slurrs about the blantantly obvious. Chip on my shoulder? Too right right mate, come and try and take it off me and see what happens!

PS. Some pictures of Pauline on your blogg site wouldn’t go astray - they’d be thematically appropriate.

Iain

I'm mystified. Can you help. You say Hurley cannot face trial because there is insufficient evidence and if he did he would not have to give evidence. You along with all those who protest his innocence say the injuries were the result of a fall.

Here's my questions.

Who witnessed the fall? According to the Coroner it was only Hurley and it was apparent only because of his conversation with another policeman.

Say there is a trial and since it is only Hurley who claims a fall then that's not going to be shown in any trial. What defence has Hurley in this event?

You think the police culture dead and gone in Queensland? What about that disgraceful initial Police investigation by Hurley's mates?

I think we all agree even if there is no trial that something needs to be done to ensure Justice is seen to be done.

If there is no trial then I reckon a broad inquiry is needed into the Qld Police Service, with a special inquiry into the actions of the DPP, the Police Union, as well as the role played by the Beattie and his Ministers. It should have unlimited terms of reference along the lines of a Fitzgerald Inquiry and it will absolutely be needed to restore public confidence in the Queensland Police Service and more importantly the Justice System in Queensland. Because obviously our system has horriblly failled at least one man and his family and friends. His death was a result much worst than anything that came out of Fitzgerald.

What do you think?

Keith

I do not know whether Hurley is innocent or not.

However, if the only person who says that the there was a fall was Hurley, and he chooses not to give evidence, then it is only what Hurley has said to another officer that can be presented.

It seems, and someone will correct me if I am wrong, that no-one else saw the actual incident take place.

It would be up to the crown to prove, beyond reasonable doubt in the jury's mind, in order for murder to be proved, that the injuries were caused as an intent of Hurley deliberately attempting to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. This could be lessened to manslaughter if the accused could prove provocation, however, this defence would require Hurley to take the stand and give his version, opening himself up to cross examination.

Manslaughter could be argued if the crown can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Hurley was deliberately doing something unlawful, but did not intend to cause death or serious bodily harm, and that didn't include the possibility of self defence. Self defence being unlikely to be claimed, as this would require Hurley to take the stand and give evidence.

The jury will be instructed not to make any adverse inferences from the refusal to give evidence.

This therefore leaves forensic evidence: the physical clues: yes, there were major injuries not usually associated with a fall, however, if the defence could get the expert witnesses to even concede the possibility, and were able to produce their own experts to say that it is more than just possible, then reasonable doubt could be created.

One last point, it is likely that the defence would want the jury actually taken to view the place where this happened, to see the steps of the police station, so that they could judge for themselves.

I understand the steps may no longer be there.