John,

As regards the rioting I hope this doesn't sound too pedantic but ... I don't believe that the government was forced at all. I suspect it was a cool calm decision on the anticipation of political gain. The Courier Mail were obviously going to fully support it.

As regards the rioters you can understand that they are regular people who think that a big (solidly built 200.66cm) white cop killed one of their own. Chances are, as in any of these situations, there are people seeking power who manipulate them with false information. Understandably they are outraged rather than considering legal sophistication however crucial.

"Because of this, and the media's prejudicial influence, Mr. Hurley will not get a fair trial."

You can say that again! Not on planet earth.

Nevertheless I can't help think that a jury who are reasonably honest with themselves will have enough life experience and common sense to form conclusions that will be more favourable to Hurley than certain members of the judiciary have. Some assumptions they made seem a little extravagant when compared to real life experience. There was a time when I thought the sophistication of judges would make them better equipped to judge guilt and innocence. Now I take the view that their typically priveleged background makes them incapable of seeing from their "ivory tower" the obvious due to lack of experience. I am grateful we have a jury system for serious criminal matters.

"Sure, there is a good chance Mr. Hurley killed Cameron Doomadgee."

I disagree. If you mean beat Mulrunji up so severely that he died as a result then personally I think it is extremely unlikely based on the medical evidence, and the testimony of the late key witness which combine to contradict that view, and the surrounding circumstances which afford other possibilities. In a less criminal way it may be another story. I believe that some things he may have done and failed to do were less than ideal.

mjpb the info on the video surveillance system being turned off was reported shortly after the incident occurred if I recall correctly, and I believe the coroner's report mentions it as well.

The Judge was hired due to the fact that the DPP and the Coroner had different views, and the judge found the DPP was wrong (aren't POLICE PROSECUTORS staff members of the DPP and work for the DPP and usually POLICE?), and the coroner was right, and despite the whitewash that the Govt and Police seemed to want to continue with, the Govt woke up the vast majority of the Public did not buy it.

When a Coroner and a Judge (who would have a far better knowledge of the law etc than a bureaucrat) come to the same conclusion which totally differs from the farcical decision of the DPP I believe we need to be asking serious questions.

Mr Fitzgerald found that the Police Brotherhood protected their own whether they were doing right or wrong, seems like not much has changed except the PR work to make the public think different.

Maybe you should do what I have done, which is look at all the available facts to date and make your own mind up purely based on the available facts, which is what I have done and that is why I said there has been a stench about this matter from day one, and there still is to a degree.

Sorry if the truth hurts but it is what it is!

Yes I have had to laugh at the adverts on the radio from the Qld Police Union, but at the same time I realize they are the ones running the show to a large degree not the Govt.

The 4 Corners report on the ABC a few nights ago is common with Police associations/Unions in most states and shows how things really are and who runs the show.

Threats, harassment and intimidation have been Police tactics for years and still are the norm.

Darwin,

You raise other issues and I don't want to prolong them because I believe that Hurley is having the emotion of a long history of misdeeds directed toward him and this is clouding judgement. In most of it I agree with you. But I just want to focus on Hurley's situation (and clarify the difference between DPP and QP).

Re:video Are you sure you aren't thinking of reports regarding Logan Brisbane? It definitely happened there. The acting coroner's report does not say anything about a video system being turned off and on as alleged in here.

"POLICE PROSECUTORS staff members of the DPP and work for the DPP and usually POLICE?"

Police (and other departments, eg. Dept of Primary Industry) have prosecutors. They are just police trained in prosecution. The DPP prosecutors are from a different department. Their department deals with particular prosecutions. For most lower court matters police prosecutors do the prosecution. DPP prosecutors are legal practitioners and they prosecute matters in higher courts (serious crimes).

"and the coroner was right"
As you know I disagree. I'm itching to go into more detail. I have real life experience of what she thinks is impossible. But Wilkinson from QPU got done for contempt for mouthing off about her for ignoring expert evidence so ...

An acting coroner made findings based on the loose approach to evidence that she was entitled to consider to ensure a full enquiry. The DPP was restricted to only looking at evidence that can be used in court. The former judge was hired by Beatty and was not acting in the capacity as judge. It is normally the DPP's call. That is how it works.

Media hype and available facts are two different things.

Firstly I'll declare a personal interest!
I once appeared in a court where Justice Kirby resided. I was overwhelmed by his humanity in dealing with my case and so will be forever defensive of his integrity. To suggest that he would conduct any investigation with anything but honesty and rigor is indeed foolish.

Either the coroner or the DPP was wrong. The DPP is advised by police who are sworn to evidence of the particular case.

It is not the case that Hurley is being found guilty, just charged! due process is being followed and a court and a jury will determine what injuries were reasonable to a person drunk and arrested and when and how he died. "he fell" is no longer a defence.
While not having all the facts, I know where my money lies. A policeman must sometimes be brutal it's to be determined how brutal he's allowed to be.
I've been witness to how brutal it can get, note witnessed not subject to. I will be the first to applaud a not guilty result, forever I'm a pacifist and like all wish police to be the same.
fluff

fluff,
you declare a personal issue, but I suggest that all Australians have a personal interest in this issue for the police force has some considerable power over each person in this country.

Either the coroner or the DPP are wrong is stating the obvious.

You state that a 'policeman must sometimes be brutal and it's to be determined how brutal hes allowed to be'.

I think that the law is quite clear of the process to be followed if the police cause the fatality of a person, such as shooting them.

That is not the issue in this case. If this was an issue of 'sufficient force' being used then why the cover up.

If this were just an unfortunate accident as the DPP declared, why was there a big cover up. Mates investigating mates.

why do you state that you "will be the first to applaud a not guilty result". Are you a member of the police fraterninty?

You sound like you think it is ok for police to remain above the law.

If Hurley is found guilty, he can appeal etc and do whatever time he must. But poor Mulrunji has no life to enjoy - his life was cut short.

As a witness to police being brutal, how would your statement change if it were your son, brother, or father who got the treatment Mulrunji got.

This issue raises the ongoing concern that some people want justice to remain an illusion for Indigenous Australians.

The police union, as I have stated earlier, appear to be demanding that they are above the law and any of their propaganda I have seen/heard to date does nothing to sway my thoughts.

It appears that little has changed in the police culture since the Fitzgerald inquiry.

I would suggest that the police union members look carefully at where their union is taking them, for the stance they have taken does not appear to be a point of law.

From what I can understand, the police unions stance appears to be a demand for the right to kill, without challenge.

Scary

"A policeman must sometimes be brutal it's to be determined how brutal he's allowed to be."

Do yourself a big favour, read the Coroner's report, http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/courts/coroner/findings/mulrunji270906.pdf

Then read the reports from the Royal Commission in Deaths in Custody here http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/rciadic/

and come back and make a more informed comment.