Dear o sung wu,

I am indeed a little surprised at your apparent inability to grasp the essence of the concept, especially given your time involved with the law.

This is the context you first used the word on this thread;

“Merely a thought, and all part of the res gestae ? A theory is all ?”

I have assumed given your background you would have had a good grasp of the term and thus were asserting that it was your thought and theory that should be part of the mix. After all res gestae is primarily focussed on evidence that may otherwise be disallowed because of its nature eg hearsay.

I have quite correctly shown that the thoughts and theories of a retired policeman looking at an indistinct set of images on a computer half a world away should not be considered part of the res gestae.

If that was indeed your position then it is obviously untenable.

But to give you the benefit of the doubt perhaps you meant the direct physical evidence itself such as 'detritis' or lack thereof around the mouth or 'distension' or lack thereof of the wrists and joints. Yet as 'direct physical evidence' there is no need to evoke res gestae remembering the term is primarily concerned with admissibility of spontaneous and contemporaneous hearsay evidence.

I think you meant the former but I will leave it up to you to enlighten us.

There's a saying STEELEREDUX, the correct quotation escapes me, but in essence it goes something like this; - actions that result in 'unintended consequences' ? I believe it's entirely relevant to you ?

You see, without realising, you've done me a good service over the preceding 18 - 24 months ? I fear without the verve and energy you've introduced into many of your arguments, or other disputes you'd wished to thoroughly depose ('unintended') my own fine fettle may've contracted even further than others, more qualified had diagnosed and anticipated ? For this I must thank you.

Res gestae, direct evidence, it would seem we'll forever dance around the interpretation, definition, relevance, admissibility and weight, etc., ad infinitum ? So, shall we now agree for expediency sake, that you accept, the possibility that my initial observations 'may' suggest it could be an instance of infanticide, and not one of accidental drowning by involuntary immersion in sea water ?

I've purposely NOT raised any 'evidence of character' concerning the father. Yet to be proven, and certainly not relevant. Yet some on this Forum have provided 'links' to the questionable conduct & behaviour of the infant's father.

After all, isn't it incumbent that we all should retain an open mind ? It seems the father of this unfortunate infant certainly has some questions to answer ? Furthermore I've not bothered to follow his account of the events, or the accounts of witnesses who (apparently) were present in the vessel in question.

I've based my reservations, entirely on the partial image of the infant, nothing else.

Or is it your wish we continue to tease out both the definition and relevance of res geatae ? Including the entire Gestae family, until one of us ultimately topples over with an acute myocardial infarction ? I'm completely comfortable either way STEELEREDUX, for I (again), draw your attention to my second paragraph herein.

Dear o sung wu,

I am sincerely thankful you have found our exchanges invigorating and that they have served in some small measure to stave off what appears to be a less than rosy prognosis. I have had a couple of those delivered to me through my lifetime and they are not pleasant. I do hope you continue to defy expectations.

You wrote;

“So, shall we now agree for expediency sake, that you accept, the possibility that my initial observations 'may' suggest it could be an instance of infanticide, and not one of accidental drowning by involuntary immersion in sea water ?”

I'm afraid I'm sticking to my guns on this one my friend. I do not accept them at all. There are plenty of politicians who are changing their firmly held beliefs for the sake of expediency at the moment and I've got a sneaking suspicion you would be disappointed if I did the same.

Cont...

cont...

You may well say we should retain an open mind but the efforts of those on this thread and through much of the Murdoch press has been to denigrate and cast suspicion on the father. You were just part of that group. In another setting your claim “I've purposely NOT raised any 'evidence of character' concerning the father.” might have been allowed to remain unchallenged but in this context it can not.

Yet all that has been produced is nothing but slander and innuendo, like the claim he was 'just looking for a good dentist'. View the last Media Watch episode for the true story.
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/media-watch/FA1435H033S00

What I will concede is that the mind of a former detective will work differently to mine, the propensity to remain suspicious of motive and events must of course have been ingrained over 32 years. Therefore while still contending you have little or no basis to be flagging this as a murder your frame of reference makes it more likely that would occur. It must be said though your antipathy towards Muslims must also be acknowledged as part of that frame.

As to res gestae if you have nothing further to add then I'm happy to leave it there. I have little doubt we will find other matters that will serve to sustain your 'fine fettle' in other threads.

STEELEREDUX...

Apropos 'res gestae' ? I'm bound to admit that I've made an elemental and foolish error, in persistently and resolutely arguing over it's use, within the evidentiary component of the criminal law ? And I'm at a loss as to why ? My 'muddled' thinking was like a needle implacable stuck fast in the groove of an old gramophone record, as such I've managed to make a thorough fool of myself altogether ?

A fundamental but quite stupid error, with enormous consequences, that must surely go to my future professional credibility as a former detective sergeant of police ? Accordingly, I offer you STEELEREDUX, my profound (and PUBLIC) apology, acknowledging that you were quite correct with your summation of the doctrine. And I was utterly WRONG !

Concerning my other observations, I don't resile for a nanosecond some of my other remarks, and you're quite correct (again it would appear!) coppers are taught to harbour suspicions on anything that appears irregular, or unexplainable ? I'm again sorry for my 'pigheadedness' over res gestae issue ? No excuses either !

I shall now retire quietly to my cave in order that I may lick my wounds and try to save a modicum of my rapidly diminishing self-respect !

Dear o sung wu,

Of course the apology is accepted.

The fact that you extended it marks you a cut above the rest.

Just look at Jay of Melbourne was reduced to, contending that the Crime Scene Investigator Command Sergeant Major Mehmet colluded with Mr Kurdi and the photographers to strip the infants body of a blue t-shirt and dress it in a red one to apparently match a photograph of the boy. The fact that JOM keep digging rather than acknowledging his mistake has left him with zero credibility.

You wrote; “And I'm at a loss as to why ?”

The answer is is rather self evident. Your were engaged in a discussion with a person who you consider is a 'boastful, pompous, know all', 'the wisest fool', a 'little man', 'manifestly unwell', 'classic McNaghten's Rule candidate', suffering from 'delusion of grandeur', 'one very very sick puppy', relaxed with the 'entitlement languor', and a 'subjugated small businessman'. As such you were disinclined to pause and reflect on the position you were putting. It has happened to me on this forum where I was forced to give an apology, and I have little doubt it will occur again.

We all make mistakes and because of your apology I'm happy to take a clean slate into the next time we do battle, as in never mention it again.

However there is another here who may well have a new nickname – Jay of Meticulous Research.