This is such a frightening story. In 1999 I was working as a teacher in Queensland. A child told me that another teacher was regularly hitting him. The rest of the class sat in silence, looking at me, so it appeared to be true. I did what we had been instructed to do - I reported the child's disclosure to the school principal and then asked no more questions about the situation. I later found out under freedom of information that no written record was made of my report.
But one year later I was told that "lots of" secret allegations had been made against me in "lots of" documents. And two days later I was given a letter to say that I would be in a punishment program the next year. To this day the department refuse to tell me what the allegations were. So I can never prove myself innocent. The bad Apple Bullies website http://www.badapplebullies.com/investigations.htm explains my story. God help any Australian woman who tries to deal with child abuse.

Welcome to the dysfunctional world known as the Australian legal club. It is a club that attracts an eclectic bunch of people. Its decisions handed down from the bench by gayly robed men and women are abstruse in the extreme. For instance, in one court a woman seeking protection from a violent partner may leave the court with a piece of paper which carries the title of AVO. The AVO might bar her partner from coming within 200 metres of her. In another court, two Sri Lankan homosexuals are granted asylum on the grounds that they might be subject to violence if returned to Sri Lanka. Why aren’t they returned to Sri Lanka armed with an AVO? Is this a tacit admission by one court that an AVO is just a worthless piece of paper?

Of course Ms. Beckett was denied the right to make an impact statement. Power is not being prosecuted for interference with the course of justice, perjury, or any other offence related to the allegations made in the article. The injuries she has suffered are not the consequence of Power's obtaining of child molestation materials.

A convicted, violent criminal preaching on injustice.

Whatever next!

An AVO can be taken out by anyone with malicious intent, no proof is required, there is no police investigation required, then you have to go to court to plead your case and even if you prove that you are no threat, or the other person drops their request for the AVO it still goes on your record.
So then you find yourself with a police record as a voilent person, even if you have made no threat or committed no act of voilence.
This has happened to me and my wife in NSW.
A friend whilst going through a marriage breakup, even though he was never voilent or threatening, whose wife applied for an AVO then changed her mind. When he applied for a gun liciense, and was refused even though it had never gone to court.
Funny thing (not ha ha) homeless children can easily find paedophiles, yet police can't catch paedophiles,( trying walking around Kings Cross and you can see paedofiles picking up street kids every day) which probably means kids are smarter than cops, if police catch paedophiles with kids, they charge the kids with being in moral danger then the kids get sent back to abusive parents or locked up.
Welcome to NSW where the justice system is still as corrupt as the days of The Rum Corps.

same system, same inputs, same results.

if you're surprised, keep it a secret as you don't want to be laughed at, do you?

you can have a better australia, just stop voting for politicians.

My question is: why are you surprised enough about it to write something? The injustice of the judiciary system is so deeply entrenched throughout our society, particularly Australian society, that what would make news would be to find an uncorrupted policeman/lawyer/judge contained within it, and what is more, it has been corrupt from the day Gov. Phillip landed on its shores. If this is hard to believe simply ask why is it that almost no rich people are convicted or spend time in gaol now or then...gosh, don't get me started! However, I can say, quite categorically, (without getting too high on my soap box) that too few people receive proper justice through legal channels. Over the years I am sorry to say that I now believe that the concept of natural justice is gaining more traction, rightfully or wrongfully.

Dealing with the Mob: I had a similar experience in 2000 when I uncovered abuse and a paedophilia group operating through several schools in the northern NSW area. I reported it after gaining all the evidence through doctors, hospital and various other sources, and initially my coverage of it was supported - until the Ed. Dept ordered the source of the information to be 'shut down' (giving the local schools a bad name), particularly after I challenged the Principals as to why they were not taking more proactive actions (since they knew); the Chamber of Commerce lodged protests to my editor as I was 'giving the town a bad name'; and the council, initially supportive but ordered by their mayor to ensure I was muzzled in case the area 'was unfavourably viewed by potential home buyers'; and the police, when asked why they weren't acting on the parent's complaints, formed a closed circle against my coverage. I have to ask why. Is paedophilia such a big industry now that too many vested interests are being hurt in trying to expose it? Just exactly who is involved? I was, of course, sacked within a few weeks, and to this day have not received a reason, despite much effort.

Thanks for that, Arcticdog.
I have also lived for the past six years in a small community where people - important people- have lied about me or pretended not to know what was going on. It is the strangest way to live. Nothing in my previous life experience had prepared me for this situation. I absolutely trusted and respected many of these people. I had no idea what they were doing till I applied for my documents under Freedom of Information. If I had not applied for my FOI documents I would never have realised what was secretly "going on". My whole concept of my life in Australia has been changed by this experience. There is no real law to protect ordinary people. Selfish, evil people have gained control of this country. I know this sounds naive but I don't care.

This is a tragic and horrific story.

I would like to point out to OLO folk that when similar stories are told about Indingenous kids being victims of predators, race is an almost automatic factor raised.

In this instance I presume the perpetrator is not Indigenous, so what is his ethnicity? I am not fair dinkum! for I don't care what his ethnicity is but I would like to make the point that children should be protected against predators like this.

Surely it is time for all good people to demand that this abuse and exploitation of children must end. Maybe it is time to prosecute the people who do nothing, who ignore such behaviour.

Where is the justice of this pervert getting only 2 years! Oh I get it , he was a police officer wasn't he? They know how to look after their own.

Those who support and promote the pornography industry share in the guilt that allow these men and sometimes women to carry out their perverted lusts on children. Paedophiles and pornography go hand in hand. Advertisers promote children as sex objects and no one complains until they are treated as such. If their was as much outrage with the porno industry as their was with the mad mufti our children would be a lot safer.

The Prophetic voice is sorely needed this day.

I'm stunned by the depths of legal manipulation carried out by those named in this article. What stuns me even more, is the huge list of the 'nobility' who are drawing a line in the sand and declaring whos side they are on IRRESPECTIVE of the evidence.

God help us.

JESUS SAID: (Luke 11)

44 "Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it."

45 One of the experts in the law answered him, "Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also."

46 Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

52 "Woe to you lawyers, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."

53 When Jesus left there, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, 54 waiting to catch him in something he might say.

COMMENT: The last verse is most instructive concerning how much of the legal fraternity acts when 'cornered' by the voice of the Almighty.

Regarding the Case of Mr Power, we can all reflect on these words.

Galatians 6:7

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction;

Even though Mr Cowdery appears be reluctant to press charges in certain cases, God is still not mocked.

Perhaps the law should scrutinize more closely the people from Taree who were also involved?

We could also ask "Is Taree unique"? unlikely.

Gross miscarriage of justices are being carried out on a daily basis because our system of investigation and justice has broken down. It has been re-designed to work as an administration system in that it just takes notes and records issues, holds inquiries and holds elections while they wait for their fat retirement cheques.

We need to get the focus on 'Procedural Fairness' as without that we have no hope as the system is under no obligation to do the right thing!

Jolanda - Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our Children Deserve better.

First I will say that I have met Patrick Power, I have observed him in court, acting as a skilled advocate for the crown (by the way people - that is you and me , anyone he put away he put away on our behalf).

No, knowing what I know now about this deeply flawed individual (and that is as kindly as I can put it) I would not write a reference for him. I consider that he deserves to do time in prison, but then again, I am a simple person, I believe that anyone who causes injury whilst breaking a traffic law should be imprisoned for GBH and everyone who causes a death on the roads whilst breaking the law - any law - should do at least 12 years for manslaughter.

Of course the author of the article here did time for armed robbery, well, I guess that he didn't do it, he must have been completely innocent, or maybe he had a difficult childhood, or maybe he belongs to the Neddy Smith school: (Neddy once writing that anyone that he killed deserved to be killed, so anyone the author robbed must have deserved to be robbed-). By the way, Patrick Power was one of several crowns to act as prosecutors in Neddy Smith trials – I guess according to this author Neddy should walk free now?

Yes, there are many miscarriages of justice, in that too many people get free on what many would consider technicalities. Too many people have their sentences shortened on the grounds of poor childhoods (poleeeeeze! what happened to individual responsibility?).

Just remember, the crown only ever has one go – if a jury finds an accused not guilty then the crown cannot appeal, if the Court of Criminal Appeal acquits, then the Crown cannot appeal, same with the High Court, If the crown drops the ball, then the guilty walk – into our lives.

Hamlet you are a FOOL.
Power put people away or at least one not for the crown
BUT FOR HIS PAEDOPHILE MATES.
As for your rant against the author he has paid his debt to society, and is now doing his job as journalist.

Welcome to the real world of the fascist labour States.
It is only a matter of time before a majority of the peasant class in this country wake up and realise what is going on under our very noses.
Any suggestion that a matter has gone before a properly constituted court is a result of ignorance as the judicial-system and the rule-of-law, we thought we had, has long gone and the alternative that has been surreptitiously replaced by the bureaucrats and the not so honourable members of the judiciary is so easy to now identify as the results and decisions are a sham.
The so called "courts-of-law " don’t exist as the Magistrates Court is a court of consent-jurisdiction with an as of right appeal to the alleged District-Court or review to the Qld Supreme-Court.
The Qld District-Court Act requires that this District-Court have a SEAL but it can't be used and it is not used because it does not exist and the illusion of a pretend court that is provided by our judiciary and bureaucrats is a TRIBUNAL, under the pretend seal of the office stamp, in which the rule-of-law does not apply and Govt Policy of the so called elected governing fascist regime prevails. If the lower court has no valid appeal process provided in a properly constituted appeal-court ( District-Court) the decisions are void but in Qld the decisions are enforced at the barrel of a gun by Beattie's armed SS, the Qld Police Service thugs.
The Qld Supreme-Court also does not exist in normal circumstances as the SEAL of the Supreme-Court of Queensland is also not used and this is done on the instructions of the Attorney-Generals Department, not Kerry Shine as these decisions are made buy people who have authority over him as well. The SEAL of the Supreme-Court of Queensland does exist as it was displayed on the certificate issued to Kevin Rudds daughter in the Supreme Court when she was admitted as a solicitor but you will never get it placed on your documents, not until you are dead.

alanpoi

You may want to look at these cases before you jump to judgement, look who the crown was in each case, and the nature of the matter:

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/26536925-9baa-4746-8f6d-9f796cc3313b/1/doc/

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/26536925-9baa-4746-8f6d-9f796cc3313b/2/doc/

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/26536925-9baa-4746-8f6d-9f796cc3313b/3/doc/

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/26536925-9baa-4746-8f6d-9f796cc3313b/4/doc/

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/26536925-9baa-4746-8f6d-9f796cc3313b/5/doc/

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/26536925-9baa-4746-8f6d-9f796cc3313b/6/doc/

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/26536925-9baa-4746-8f6d-9f796cc3313b/7/doc/

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/26536925-9baa-4746-8f6d-9f796cc3313b/8/doc/

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/6a62318b-ad10-4744-acad-8413bd564e95/1/doc/

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/6a62318b-ad10-4744-acad-8413bd564e95/2/doc/

There are more -

are you saying that in each and every case Power was working on behalf of paedophiles? You may consider me to be a fool, but do you really consider that everyone in prison is innocent?

Yes, Power deserves gaol time, he has pleaded guilty, but isn't it a bit foolish to consider that all of the prosecutions that he has had a hand in resulted in misscarriages of justice?

It has become a facade when critics attempt to shoot the messenger rather than dissect the message. "The Forum is On Line Opinion's article discussion area" - an introduction discarded by Leigh and Hamlet who have personalised their criticism by focusing on me and/or my criminal record as opposed to the article I have written. Just for the record, over the last 4 years since I have been submitting articles OLO readers will be aware that I am an ex-prisoner.To those who don't - it's a fact. I am a convicted criminal who has served over 17-years for armed robbery. I am also a qualified freelance journalist. I studied journalism in prison and graduated with a journalism degree when I was released from prison. I have been published in national magazines, newspapers and books as wellas OLO. I was the first Australian ex-prisoner to be admitted into the Qld branch of the Australian Journalist Association and I am the first Australian ex-prisoner/freelance journalist to be shortlisted for three journalism awards in the 2004 Qld Media Awards-I won two of those awards. If anybody wants to know more about my criminal/prison life it is a matter of public record documented in my book Intractable published by Pan Macmillan in 2006. Leigh and Hamlet, and any others who want to "shoot the messenger" rather than dissect the message, it's now common knowledge that I am an ex-prisoner. Where do we go from here? You both can no longer anonymously hide behind cloaks of sanctimonious hypocrisy to throw personalised barbs at me in the hope of deflecting the real focus of my articles - a ploy that negates the intended purpose of the forum. I would also respectfully remind Leigh and Hamlet that Oscar Wilde, Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1971 Nobel Literature prize winner), Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandella, and Henry Lawson were all convicted criminals in their own countries. Do you both suggest their writings be damned too because of their criminal records? Just a thought. cheers for now, bernie matthews.

Bernie Matthews, "But perhaps Ian Barker overstepped the mark at the recent pre-sentence hearing when he claimed Power was "a person of integrity" and a good man who had made an "outstanding contribution to society"."

I thought Barker said, "This is an extremely sad case, we have a good man, a person of integrity, recognised by his friends, relatives and peers as a person of integrity, who is ruined by his own conduct."

Couldn't the same have been said about yourself? "Who was ruined by his own conduct".

In as much as you want to be respected for your change in behavior and not judged by your past, it is unfair of you to ignore Power's previous "good" behavior in light of his present "bad" behavior.

Did your lawyer and friends not stand up and give examples of your non-criminal behavior at your trial?

As for the Roseanne Catt trial. I would say a lot more was going on than what ever Powers part may have been. The whole story is a shocking balls up by the very institutions we expect to protect us. Even this many years later a good thorough investigation by the Feds wouldn't go amiss.

Hamlet, your admiration for Power's legal prowess is self-evident. I have not witnessed him in action so I will accept your observation that "he acted as a skilled advocate for the Crown." I would suggest it was that same legal skill he utilised to prosecute and help wrongfully imprison Roseanne Catt.
Fact 1. Patrick Power prosecuted Roseanne Catt. It was a case predicated by defence claims that material prosecution witnesses including Barry Catt and a police detective were involved in paedophile activity with Roseanne Catt's step-children. The children initially reinforced those claims but under Power's guidance they later recanted their stories. Roseanne Catt was convicted and sent to prison.
Fact 2. In 2002 the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal instigated an inquiry into Catt's conviction. The 18-month inquiry headed by Judge Thomas Davidson found the conviction was unsafe and recommended Roseanne Catt's release from prison. He also found that Detective Peter Thomas, Barry Catt and Adrian Newell conspired to have Rosemary Catt wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. Judge Davidson was also critical of Patrick Power's handling of the case.
Fact 3. 2004 Judge Davidson's findings of fact went back to the NSW CCA where Roseanne Catt's conviction was quashed and she was released from prison after 10 years of wrongful imprisonment.
It is an undeniable fact that four NSW judges (Judge Davidson and three Appelate judges) all agreed that Roseanne Catt's conviction was unsafe as opposed to the skilled legal advocacy of Patrick Power that helped convict her. If I was a punter, then 4-1 are good odds that something was seriously flawed in the prosecution of Roseanne Catt.
Fact 4. 2006 Patrick Power is arrested, charged and pleads guilty to possessing child pornography. Patrick Power might have been a skilled advocate for the Crown but he is now a self-confessed paedophile. That connection adds another dimension to the claims of a cover-up in the Roseanne Catt case.
Hamlet, without trying to be omniscient, if it quacks like a duck and it waddles like a duck, then unfortunately, it is a duck. Regards bernie matthews

Thank you Bernie for the article and your thoughts and research. I am a tad tentative about the 'intuitive leap'... that Power prosecuted Catt; Power was into Porn; Catt's trial was about porn & paedophilia; therefore Catt's trial was flawed.
Is this the logic pared away? Are you suggesting that Power's actions were overt? Are you suggesting that he was active in protecting the prosecution's witnesses to the point of miscarriage or are you suggesting that it was covert and even latent: a character flaw taken inevitably to his job?

I was always amused by Sir Garfield Barwick's assertion (from memory in a TV interview) that once he placed the wig and gown on, he was without values (a judicial tabla rasa) or some such nonsense. Was the interviewer Gerard Henderson?

Bernie - it would be well to develop a thicker skin - shooting the messenger is a journalists occupational hazard. Your work is good and many think so. You've turned your life around 180 degrees. The malice exhibited towards you may in fact be prompted by envy - your work is erudite - theirs is not. Ignore it.

Dealing with the Mob - As a newly graduated journalist ( who incidentally was a teacher prior to that) I watched in horror and disbelief as the Chamberlain case unfolded with its blatant and gross police and judicial distortions. My horror was compounded when other journalists I knew, whom I previously regarded in high esteem, subscribed to these deliberate and provocative distortions in reporting them, leading the public down an inevitable path. Because I did not fall into their patterns of behaviour, I was ostracized toatally and became isolated, like you. I wish I could be more encouraging. It does not get better, but just know that you are not alone.

It is worthwhile reading the 2005 Court of Criminal Appeal judgement in the Catt matter.

The CCA quashed several of the convictions, left others in place, and have remitted others for retrial. No-one reading the judgement, based on the investigation by Judge (later acting Justice) Davidson, could escape the conclusion that Ms Catt indeed assaulted her husband on several occasions.

Judge Thomas Davidson, of deep baritone voice, is a thorough and meticulous man. Anyone who has sat through one of his two and a half hour 'remarks on sentence' can atest to that.

The judgment, of the CCA, that leans heavily on the report of Judge Davidson, can be found at:

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/312f523c-dada-49d6-bccd-d3c31d6a2638/1/doc

Of interest is the following paragraph at 111:

"The children were called by the Crown at the hearing before Davidson ADCJ and gave evidence in relation to the rock incident, the cricket bat incident and other matters which was contrary to the evidence they had given at the trial. Furthermore, they now say that the sexual assault allegations which they had previously made against their father, Barry Catt, were false and explained that they had been persuaded to make them by the appellant."

Perhaps instead of simply accepting the version offered by the author of this article we should all go back to the actual judgement of the CCA for ourselves.

Do we really want a journalist, of any hue, interpreting information and deciding what we should read? Do we trust what is in the press? Not always. Why should we trust some one's version in OLO?

Getting back to the original topic: The CCA judgement makes no mention of Patrick Power.

Getting back to a previous article:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2836

Kathleen Folbigg: Bernie, I didn't see you at the back of the court, did you actually hear any of the evidence in her original trial at Darlingurst?

Bernie,
keep up the good work mate. it is people like you that reveal what really goes on. regardless of stature. keep writing !!. and for the bernie haters who cannot fathom a crook with new stripes; get over it!! i knew bernie in prison and he was always a man with integrity and honesty..gee he was a criminal..robbed banks..was convicted. now its powers turn to face the wrath. god i hope his rotten deeds are fully exposed and all will see what an evil bastard he really is.

Hamlet - I think your link to the judgment, of the CCA, that leans heavily on the report of Judge Davidson -

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/312f523c-dada-49d6-bccd-d3c31d6a2638/1/doc

- is wrong. Can you give us the correct link?

Articdog - thanks again. This situation of being trapped in a small community who do not want to hear that you have been abused - well, it is interesting, but it is not the life that I expected or wanted.

Hamlet, your reference to the Catt appeal invites readers to check for themselves but it might be wise to post the correct hyperlink - the one you posted was R v Achurch and concerns an assault charge that has nothing to do with the Catt appeal. I hope it was an inadvertent mistake on your part and not a deliberate attempt to confuse readers? There is enough confusion in the legal system already. I offer a tip for any future posts - the basic rule I learned during my journalism studies was to double check facts before exposing them to the scrutiny of discerning readers. It might help.
There were serious paedophile allegations which Roseanne Catt claims are the catalyst for her being charged and wrongfully imprisoned. Patrick Power was the prosecutor in that case. Roseanne Catt and her supporters claim Power covered up those allegations in pursuit of a conviction. They now claim he had a vested interest in a cover-up because he is a self-confessed paedophile as current events have revealed. Supporters of Power claim this not so and that he was just doing his job. From a layman's perspective, the only way to prove or disprove these serious allegations is to hold an independent Inquiry into the whole sordid affair - something Roseanne Catt and her supporters have been lobbying for over the past 4 years but the machinations of the NSW legal/political system have strenuously tried to avoid. Why? If Patrick Power used his position both as a prosecutor and self-confessed paedophile to cover up paedophile activity while he prosecuted Roseanne Catt surely that is in the public interest? "In the public interest" I might add Hamlet, is another basic tenet of journalism.

Try

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2005nswcca.nsf/a16acdaf45f305714a256724003189f5/61ad9c23e0a3550aca2570d5007ee652?OpenDocument

The 'summary' reads:

1. Regina v CATT [2005] NSWCCA 279.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction pursuant to s 474C(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 - whether the convictions were the result of a miscarriage of justice - whether because of fresh evidence the conviction in relation to each count must be quashed
Decision: 1. Uphold the appeal in relation to counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 and quash each conviction; 2. Enter a verdict of acquittal on count 9; 3. Order that there be a new trial in relation to counts 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7; 4. Dismiss the appeal in relation to counts 3 and 4; 5. The appellant's bail is to continue; 6. Reserve liberty to apply
Judgment Of: McClellan AJA at 1; Adams J at 237; Smart AJ at 238 Date: 17 August 2005
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Firearms and Dangerous Weapons Act 1973

I rather suspect that Hamlet is either an ex-cop or a cop or a paedofile or probably both,and he is not a very good at reading stuff, his counter attack on me attributed things to me that I never said, then he went off on a tangent attacking what I didn't say, he just doesn't read things properly, probably poor education to match his intelligence, as I said before he is a fool and he has only reinforced that opinion, and quite frankly I don't believe a word he says.

In response to Hamlet's query about my investigation of the Kathleen Folbigg case:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2836
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2586
I was not present at Folbigg's trial. I sat through her appeal. In answer to your query Hamlet, I was not sitting at the rear of the court. I was sitting about the third row. Fourth from the left. Am I to assume from your query that you were one of the three ermine-robed gentlemen who sat in judgement on Folbigg's appeal?
Folbigg was convicted on circumstantial evidence.
My investigation of her case rests on a number of issues:
1. Her defence has always been that her children died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Those claims were medically substantiated on at least three Death Certificates. There is no universally accepted cause for SIDS. If the medical profession cannot agree on what causes SIDS how can the Australian legal profession discount that defence as improbable?
2. The British legal system, which is the basic cornerstone of the Australian legal system, was turned on its head by revelations that three women, Angela Canning, Sally Clark and Trupti Patel were all freed from prison after a medical expert offered evidence for the prosecution that it was statistically impossible that more than one child in the same family could die from SIDS and that each woman had murdered their children. That evidence was seriously flawed when it was decided by the Supreme Court of Appeal that if the medical profession cannot agree on the cause of SIDS then it cannot be discounted as a cause of one or more children dying in the same family. The women had all claimed their children died from SIDS.
3. The basic precept of British and Australian justice is guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No matter how you view the Folbigg case - there is reasonable doubt. And if the growing British precedents are any indication, then Kathleen Folbigg should not be in prison.

Kilos if you are right and Hamlet is a judge then no wonder the legal system is a joke.You are probably right as a judge is more likely to use Hamlet as a pseudonym than a copper.

Hamlet is very good at sticking up for the powers of police. His stance in the Hurley debate demonstrated this.

I also note that Hamlet is a little vocal when it comes to Indigenous issues. From the stance that hamlet and clan take on the issue of sexual abuse in Indigenous communities one could assume that if the same rules applied this case would engender the assumption that all cops are the same and somehow flawed via some imagined link.

From the legalese that Hamlet is so fond of maybe it means that Hamlet is not a cop, or a judge but a cleaner in a courtroom, or a prison guard.

Maybe Hurley will share a cell with Power if he is convicted. I just hope for Power's sake that he doesn't get Hurleyed.

Another great article Bernie.
I say, put the bastards in mainstream and let the population sort them out. These people are the worst people on earth and they are usually the ones in power. It’s very sickening.

Hi Bernie, thanks for a great article. I have followed the Roseanne Catt matter for years and am glad that she is finally free. But what I have always wondered about is what happened to Barry Catt's previous wife, the mother of children? What did he do to her?

Can you find out?

I have trawled through those judgements and all I can say is 'who would be a judge/jurist?' - that anyone can 'judge' the 'truth' and the 'facts' from all that is beyond my belief!

Whether then it is a 'miscarriage', 'not proven' or 'not guilty' I just don't know. I suppose if there is doubt ... Power's part in it? He had one but with what motive apart from work I don't know.

Regardless there were some very clever or very cunning operatives at work and at many levels. And for what? If it is/was just to be vindictive, it is astounding. If there is something deeper there (a conspiracy), it is even more alarming. The article provoked much thought; but few conclusions. Again, thanks.

You might want to check this site out

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1919747.htm

The plot thickens.

I found this article very interesting, and it gave me lots to think about, with good useful links for further reading.

However, I found many comments on the article disturbing, eg this eternally wandering sentence: "I rather suspect that Hamlet is either an ex-cop or a cop or a paedofile or probably both,and he is not a very good at reading stuff, his counter attack on me attributed things to me that I never said, then he went off on a tangent attacking what I didn't say, he just doesn't read things properly, probably poor education to match his intelligence, as I said before he is a fool and he has only reinforced that opinion, and quite frankly I don't believe a word he says." I can certify that hamlet is not a cop, not an ex-cop, not a "paedofile" [reading the dictionary helps in these cases], and not an ermined judge for that matter. I can also certify that hamlet is in fact very good at reading "stuff" [I'm guessing what that means, most of us read books, cases, poems etc rather than "stuff"], that he has a high level of education to match his intelligence and his hard work, and that he is no fool. I am not sure which word the commentor doesn't believe. This is the kind of inanity that tries to pass itself off as rational debate in Australia these days. The time spent writing it would be much better spent reading, and re-reading, the material that the article author and hamlet have provided, and working on that basis to the truth of the matter. I think there is a truth to be had here, not simply the sound and fury of insults. I'm going off now to read the cases... Helen

Helen, while I agree with many of your comments and am appalled at the attacking of the writers rather than their arguments(note that it occurred from both sides!), I would argue forcefully that it is a product of 'public' forums like this one ... and indeed talkback radio.
On one hand it is wonderful that everyone is allowed a voice and it is up to readers to discriminate rather, I think, than retaliate. Writing vindicatively and nastily may release pent up passions but the insults ruin rational argument. On the other, it can become a site for the extremes who know it all. Unfortunately, when I read Hamlet it is the way I interpret his 'work'.
So enjoy the references and the reading. I think that both sides of the Catt matter were as degenerate as the other and just wonder whether any system of law could settle it. It may be a product of an adversarial system?

I was in jail with Roseanne Catt for eighteen months, (from my own stupid white collar crime) whilst she profoundly claimed her innocence, but it fell on deaf ears. She is a lovely person, helping others and offering all the support she could give to people less fortunate than herself. She has had to give up 10 years of her lifetime because of these dreadful men and she did it very tough in jail because noone would belief her innocence. How she survived day after day, I will never know, I could not have lasted the distance. The justice system certainly failed her.

HB

She may have profusely claimed her innocence.., enough so she even believed she was innocent. But she has never been aquitted of the most serious of the crimes she committed.