|
Thanks for the explanation and comments. >What goes around comes around. Perhaps but Chris Hurley's situation is serious so proportionality might be an issue. >Indeed, The Left have controlled the agenda. Again. True. It bugs the s$%t out of me. They seem to virtually run the media. Maybe the media appreciate the newsworthyness of rent-a-crowds and repay the favour. In this case if you read the facts produced in the coronary inquiry (which I have) and sniff around you get a Chris Hurley who tries to help aboriginal people. He was actually at the site of the arrest escorting an aboriginal woman to her home so she wouldn't be beaten up. Even an aboriginal activist who knew Chris Hurley acknowledged that he wasn't racist (early on in this situation). All the organisations with "socialist" or "communist" in their name know that if an aborigine dies in custody they must be murdered by racist police and applied that reasoning here. (Drunk aborigines they would have us believe never commit suicide or anything when they are locked up - only everywhere else. They get murdered by the police in thrill kills.) The media naturally pursue that view. The pathologist's view about how the deceased died is released to the aboriginal community in the terms that the deceased died in a fall. That sounds like BS and naturally fires up the indigenous population who must be less cynical about media than you or I. Saying that the force generated by a 115kg man struggling and then falling downstairs on top of someone killed that someone makes sense. Just saying that the deceased died from a fall doesn't. A full description and the media description conjure up very different images. The media publicise every rumour kicking around that makes Chris Hurley look bad and don't retract them even after they are disproved at the coronial inquiry. The coroner decides that someone who has just been punched in the jaw and fallen downstairs, while worrying about someone else getting brained by a nearby filing cabinet that just missed the head, must know where his limbs were every split second of his fall and if he doesn't he must have something to hide, and that the other policeman who thought Hurley fell on top must therefore be wrong. An aboriginal man (in the watchhouse for the wrong reasons) says Chris Hurley punched the deceased in the head and kicked him. Medical evidence rules out the kicking leaving the coroner with punching (as opposed to the suspicion that he just might be lieing). She decides that the explanation for the death must be punching and the aboriginal man didn't have a good view so she will assume he didn't see the punching like he said but instead the punching was to the body. (The fatal injury was to the liver.) The DPP and a judge with recent Criminal Law experience and an unusually broad life experience (for a judge) take the view that you or I would take with the same facts (plus maybe some extra information that isn't public). The CMC looks at the evidence and makes the same decision thus vindicating the DPP who are scorned by the media. Naturally the media don't make a fuss about the second opinion. The socialist organisations and media see the DPP decision as a loss and dress up their anger as concern for aborigines. They win. An aboriginal activist's son who has been doing commercial mediation since 1988 (cf. Criminal law) but used to be a judge and has the title "Sir" is called in to head a review. Nothing is said about his background in the media. He is just held out as the 'guru from the South'. Contrarily they criticise the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions and make her look bad by cherry picking 3 decisions from all the decisions she has made in her career (these types of decisions are her day to day job). If that is the best they can do she sounds pretty good to me. The decisions they wield against her obviously weren't made after consulting a judge as in this case. The first decision was not prosecuting someone for rape because the victim orgasmed. She initially thought it wasn't rape. The CMC disagreed. A prosecution then went ahead until a judge stopped it. Volkers walked free. (I don't think that was widely reported). The other two were decisions to prosecute where juries then found people guilty but they got off on technicalities on appeal. Instead of just burying himself in the evidence and looking at the law in the short time it took the 'guru from the South' to make a decision he flies over to Palm Island and among other things visits the deceased's family to offer his condolences. Nice gesture but he could have spent his time differently. He decides that the thing can go to court and the media report it as the great guru from the South fixing up the DPP decision that they hold out as dodgy. Hurley gets hung out to dry. The leftist p%^$*s and the media beat their chest as they have their own way. After the media reporting continually propagandising that he is guilty and what I have said above being concealed by the media will Chris Hurley get a fair trial? Everyone has heard one side and it sounds totally the opposite of what I think happened. How can the jury go in with an open mind after years of propaganda? Media always say people have a right to know. This shows how full of it they are. It bugs me.
| 
