Australian Policeman paralysed - culprit fined

[Kevin_Lowe]

I disagree, I think a good argument is presented here.

Firstly, the fact that a defendant changes their story is in itself a damning piece of evidence, routinely used against defendants to bring into doubt the honesty of their claim.

It's entirely valid as a piece of evidence, and an important one.

Certainly. If I didn't have the video as support for the claim he was defending his father I don't think I'd believe that claim either.

Secondly, the jury's evidence of what actually happened consists entirely of:

1) The accounts of witnesses

and

2) The video of the event

The video of the event is a partial capture of one portion of the event. It does not, in any shape or form, constitute a complete account of the event, and I would be very alarmed if a jury based their assessment primarily on the video.

I would be horrified if they chose to adhere to their own interpretation of the video in preference to accepting the sworn testimony of 75 witnesses.

This failure by the jury seems to get more and more shocking with every new piece of information uncovered.

Sorry, you and Ernie M seem to be saying two different things.

Ernie M was saying the witnesses judged that the conduct of the police was legal and that of the other lot illegal, and that the jury judged differently. That could be because the jury were idiots, or it could be because they were better informed about what the law says.

You seem to be saying that the jury made a finding of fact about what actually happened which differs from that supported by 75 sworn witnesses. What fact(s) exactly are you talking about, and where is it stated that all 75 witnesses gave evidence under oath?

 

[lionking]

I think everyone is underestimating the effect of a renowned big city QC on a bunch of hicks Western Australians. As somebody observed earlier, the same thing happened with OJ.