Dear Shadow Minister,

The evidence is there for all to see.
The man (an adult) took matters into his own hands.
He took off in pursuit of a 14 year old child
driving a large Nissan Navara 4WD ute.

He drove so close to the kid that he was unable to
stop in time when the kid suddenly veered in front
of the 4WD, and then disappeared under it.

In addition to massive and internal injuries, the
kid's spinal cord was severed at the base of his
brain, killing him instantly.

And the man's defence as told to the court was -
"...had the bike not veered in front of him -
this wouldn't have happened." That's simply wrong.
Had he not been
hot on the kid's tail - this wouldn't have
happened. That's more accurate.

The FACTs remain that had the bloke in his great big
tank - not chased the kid in such hot pursuit,
driving almost on top of the kid and forcing him to
veer. Had the bloke given himself enough distance so
that he could have stopped - this would not have
happened. The bloke should have behaved like an ADULT.
He should have acted responsibly. He did neither
and the penalty should have been far harsher. The
penalty given was a joke.

Those are the facts as I see them.

Why were there no Indigenous people on the Jury?
Could they not find any?

In any case I don't care to continue going around in
circles with this discussion. We shall have to agree
to disagree on this. I am not prepared to
modify my judgement and neither are you. To continue
will achieve nothing productive.

Foxy,

You almost got there, but saying - "driving almost on top of the kid and forcing him to veer." Is still false. How do you know why Elijah veered?

You also clearly don't know how juries work. Jurors are selected for their ability to be unbiased and both the prosecution and defence can exclude jurors that have a bias or preconceived ideas.

Stacking the jury with friends and family of the deceased is generally considered a bad thing.

Dear Shadow Minister,

How do I know why Elijah veered?

Again the FACTS speak for themselves.

The driver of the 4WD told investigators that
Elijah was in front of his vehicle and that he suddenly
veered and disappeared under it. This to me indicates
that the driver of the 4WD was hot on Elijah's tail -
too close for comfort or safety -
and the driver also admitted that he
didn't have time to stop. That's what he told the police.

As for having family and friends on the Jury?
Now you are not being serious. My question regarding the
make-up of the jury was simply to wonder why they could
not have included a few Indigenous members (not family or
friends) in the mix. Your inference that Indigenous
people would be prejudiced in this case can't be taken
seriously. What all of them? Then surely the same can be
said for the all-white jurors - or are they all above
being prejudiced? Interesting.

Foxy,

At least you yielded that the Ute driver didn't force Elijah to veer across his path. However, he should not have driven so close which caused the accident for which he was convicted and punished.

Yes, I was joking wrt friends and family, but the selection of the jury is done by the judge, prosecutor and defence lawyer to weed out jurors with prejudices. To date, there is no requirement for racial quotas nor should there be.

It is entirely possible that an Aboriginal person could be unbiased, but with the Aboriginal protests outside, it would have been difficult.

Dear Shadow Minister,

A two-tonne 4WD did not cause a 70cc motocycle to
veer across its path while it was in hot pursuit
right on its tail?

Yeah, right!

I don't seriously think that's what you believe.

Anyway, moving on.

Nationwide demonstrations followed AFTER the 3 year
sentence was handed down. The protesters despite
being vocal did not exhibit any level of aggression
or violence. They were peaceful. Friends and relatives
held a candlelight vigil later on - it too was a
peaceful presence. Elijah Doughty's mother called for
the community to come together (both white and black)
and not seek any retribution.

So much for your theories.

Foxy,

So sarcasm is your last resort in a discussion?

Apart from the fact that it is physically impossible to force a bike to veer in any direction without contact, this assertion hasn't been raised by the prosecution in any article I've read, leaving me with the conclusion that you dreamed it up yourself.

Secondly, I was only postulating a scenario, most probably no aboriginals were selected in the random selection that the court uses. However, I'm surprised that you claim that there were no protests before or during the trial?