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.