Skip to comments.
Free Despite Murder Confession (Murderer free because evidence is too compelling)
The Daily Telegraph [Sydney, AU] ^
| March 12, 2005
| Unattributed
Posted on 03/12/2005 1:34:40 PM PST by quidnunc
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-102 next last
To: Sonny M
Its pretty safe to say, from reading the article, if one were to commit murder in front of a camera, the videotape would have to be inadmissible. I wouldn't be surprised if the victim's family has thought of that.
41
posted on
03/12/2005 3:28:51 PM PST
by
Celtjew Libertarian
(Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
To: quidnunc
Hey, gotta save that prison space for people who commit really, really serious offenses, like smoking in bars and not wearing their seat belts!!!
42
posted on
03/12/2005 3:31:42 PM PST
by
djf
To: quidnunc
43
posted on
03/12/2005 3:33:41 PM PST
by
SeaBiscuit
(God Bless all who defend America and the rest can go to hell.)
To: quidnunc
WTF?
Hey, a judgeship just opened up in Atlanta. Maybe he's hoping to impress one of the idiots there.
44
posted on
03/12/2005 3:34:10 PM PST
by
Tall_Texan
(If you can think 180-degrees apart from reality, you might be a Democrat.)
To: Eagles6
Sorry - unbelievably the link looks legit.
The end of civilization as the Aussies know it. 'Course we won't be far behind now that we're using international opinion polls to "interpret" our Constitution. :-(
Judicial insanity bump!
45
posted on
03/12/2005 3:44:17 PM PST
by
Tunehead54
(I'm not winking - this way I only have to hit the shift key once - so I'm lazy! ;-)
To: quidnunc
There ought to be more than the article, at least I hope so. Otherwise, this is just too damn fked up.
46
posted on
03/12/2005 3:45:00 PM PST
by
sagar
(Straight trees are cut first and honest people are screwed first_ Chanakya, 4th c. BC)
To: quidnunc
"A man who confessed to killing two women walked free from court yesterday when a judge ruled the evidence too damning."
WHAT?
"The evidence was too damning"?
So sentence him.
47
posted on
03/12/2005 3:45:54 PM PST
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
To: dighton; general_re; Poohbah; BlueLancer; hellinahandcart; Constitution Day
NSW Supreme Court, Judge Anthony WhealyWhealy, whealy stupid.
48
posted on
03/12/2005 4:04:46 PM PST
by
aculeus
(Ceci n'est pas une tag line.)
To: quidnunc
Wow this is extremely insane.
To: imskylark
I thought that was the sort of evidence that prosecutors and courts WANTED - evidence that clearly points to guilt.
50
posted on
03/12/2005 4:32:14 PM PST
by
TheBattman
(Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
To: quidnunc
wow
totally speechless
so, the victim's family is free to commit the vigilante killing with only one precaution: tape the killing so it will be too damning to convict them too
surrealism
51
posted on
03/12/2005 4:38:58 PM PST
by
Tolik
To: aculeus
Whealy, whealy stupid. I whealy, whealy wish you hadn't done that...
52
posted on
03/12/2005 4:52:46 PM PST
by
Krodg
To: quidnunc
To: quidnunc
54
posted on
03/12/2005 5:21:38 PM PST
by
King Prout
(Remember John Adam!)
To: mhking
55
posted on
03/12/2005 5:22:46 PM PST
by
King Prout
(Remember John Adam!)
To: quidnunc; diotima; HangFire; dead; feinswinesuksass; dighton
What that means, is if a single piece of evidence is so overpowering it would sway a jury from giving a fair trial, it cannot be used.
...and then my brain exploded.
56
posted on
03/12/2005 5:57:58 PM PST
by
AnnaZ
To: AnnaZ
I'm still not believing what I just read...:-{
57
posted on
03/12/2005 6:21:27 PM PST
by
HangFire
(Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations.)
To: AnnaZ
So what if someone killed the murderer, then confessed???
58
posted on
03/12/2005 6:28:28 PM PST
by
HangFire
(Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations.)
To: HangFire
Wow - I think this judge missed Evidence 101. Sure the evidence is prejudicial to the defense - because its probative value is devastating! He seems to have missed the first part of the balancing test in their statute (which is similar to that under the US Rules of Evidence). So I guess a confession would be just too "prejudicial" under his logic. Unbelieveable!!!
To: rockvillem
Exactyly. The key word is "unfair" prejudice. How is any of this evidence "unfairly" prejudicial.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-102 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson