"We aren’t going to get past ..."

True but will either of us drop it? ( :

"He is now being treated fairly ..."

No he is still facing a serious criminal trial that wouldn't normally happen. He is guaranteed at least a year of stress, suspension from work, and stigma.

"Extraordinary steps were needed ..."

If so those extraordinary steps had well and truly been taken within the usual system. There were two post mortems and a change of coroner before the DPP officially considered it. After the DPP considered it the same practical issue (was there sufficient evidence that Hurley caused the death?) was put before the CMC who made the same official decision. Unofficially an experienced criminal lawyer in the DPP looked over it for Beattie and affirmed the original decision. It was one of the most investigated matters to go before a DPP and one of the most reviewed decisions of the DPP within a proper framework. Thus that was no excuse for political interference.

"And rightly so! Afterall, fatal stingray attacks are extremely rare events."

Exactly! However if by the time evidence had been gathered and the matter went to the DPP there wasn't sufficient evidence to proceed they wouldn't have gone to trial. Here it went to trial due to political interference.

"The crux of our disagreement ...that we need to concentrate ..."

On the face of it but due to the technical nature it is like debating how brain surgery should be conducted. Are you certain that we are qualified?

"“For a few reasons I don’t believe that the threshold is reached for building the wall.”

Just what is it that you think doesn’t make the grade of sufficient evidence?"

Avoiding technical issues ... The fact that the DPP made a particular decision presumably mindful of the ramifications suggests that there isn't sufficient evidence. The fact that the CMC made the same decision suggests that there isn't sufficient evidence. The fact that another qualified person in the DPP considered the matter and affirmed the original decision indicates that there isn't sufficient evidence.

And the fact that Street found that there is sufficient evidence and that not you nor anyone else can point to any legal flaw or particular error of any sort in this decision indicates that there is sufficient evidence.

Mulrunji died in Hurley’s presence for goodness sake! He had injuries of the sort that are extremely unlikely to have been gained from anything other than heavy blows from Hurley. He was then left in a gravely injured state and allowed to die.

I mean, the basis for taking Hurley to trial has surely got to be very strong indeed. It beggars belief that he could not be brought to trial.

What more can I say?

I think we might have reached the end of this discussion.

"And the fact that Street found ...indicates that there is sufficient evidence."

It doesn't change the fact that all the independent experts said there wasn't. Admittedly it is better than nothing from your side but you are putting it a little strongly in the circumstances.

Just to reiterate: DPP, presumably taking it seriously as the Director reportedly obtained advice from the former Supreme Court judge James Thomas, found insufficient evidence. CMC found insufficient evidence. Someone else in DPP found insufficient evidence.

"Mulrunji died in Hurley’s presence for goodness sake!"

Most people die in someone's presence.

"He had injuries of the sort that are extremely unlikely to have been gained from anything other than heavy blows from Hurley."

It sounds like you are disagreeing with the consensus of expert opinion that a fall with Hurley on top could explain it but your comment is sufficiently ambiguous that you might mean due to some circumstance. If you mean medically I'll express my suspicion that that was pulled from part of your anatomy?

"I mean, the basis for taking Hurley to trial has surely got to be very strong indeed."

Obviously not according to all independent people who had both the expertise and the information.

"What more can I say?"

You always think of something.

"I think we might have reached the end of this discussion."

I guess we'll see. I obviously won't be talking to myself if you stop but you normally don't stop no matter what.

Mulrunji’s family, the people of Palm Island, the whole Australian indigenous community and indeed the whole national public need to know what happened, as far as is possible, in the most transparent manner possible, within a system that they can have some confidence in. Confidence in the courts certainly appears to be better than in any other method of judgement.

Their confidence in the DPP has been pretty well shot to pieces. Their confidence in the Qld police has been shattered. Confidence in the Qld court system is not great at least in the eyes of indigenous people. But it has been considerably improved by the acquittal of the Palm Island Four.

Given the double-ups in investigations and the reversals of findings, an open court process has become vital. This is surely much more important than the stress and any interpretation of unfair treatment that Hurley is facing…. or any interpretation of the government’s role in this saga as being inappropriate.

Bring on the court case.

"...Confidence in the courts certainly appears to be better than in any other method of judgement."

Weak excuse. How will the family feel if Hurley is found not guilty? Justice should be done. Everyone needs to be treated equally. Arbitrary justice sets a dangerous precedent particularly for indigenous Australians.

The only reason there are questions is the media beat up. Mulrunji's family, the people of Palm Island, etc. probably think that Hurley is guilty and so it seems okay to screw justice.

Justice is not a popularity contest. People or groups shouldn't have their rights screwed if they are unpopular. We fought wars to avoid this.

"Their confidence in the DPP has been pretty well shot to pieces."

That is both irrelevant to implementing an innocent until proven guilty presumption and not the fault of the DPP in this case. They even sought advice from a judge to make damn sure they made the right decision. The subsequent independent conclusions clearly vindicate the original decision maker. Yet the media would have people believe that they made a reckless incorrect decision. I guess it sells papers ...

"Their confidence in the Qld police has been shattered."

Justice isn't about popularity. I wish your reasoning had been left in the Deep South and Witch Hunts.

"Confidence in the Qld court system is not great at least in the eyes of indigenous people. But it has been considerably improved by the acquittal of the Palm Island Four."

It has nothing to do with that. The media have people thinking Hurley is guilty and DPP stuffed up and they think it is a chance to bring him to justice.

"Given the double-ups in investigations and the reversals of findings, an open court process has become vital."

To the contrary. The overinvestigation means that the initial appearance of underinvestigation could be addressed. The reversal of the finding is a logical corollary of hiring Street to do the job. It doesn't change the fact that all qualified and informed independent people agreed there is insufficient evidence.

“Weak excuse”

What! Not in the slightest!

Confidence in the legal system within the community is of paramount importance.

“The only reason there are questions is the media beatup”

NO!

Questions arose out of the death of a healthy man in custody, the very tardy initial response, the outrage felt by the Palm Island community which led to rioting and the burning of the police station, the outrage felt by the community when the DPP announced that Hurley was not going to be charged while four Palm Island men involved in the riot were, etc. The only significant thing that has happened that hasn’t drawn an appropriately strong reaction is the suicide of Mulrunji’s son.

Crikey, how on earth can you point the finger at the media over this? Just incredible!