Yep, that's right.
This sets a very dangerous legal precedent.
(
(|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Wed 14 Jan 2009, 15:19,
Reply)
It doesn't set any precedent at all.
The judge sounds like a twat, admittedly.
On the other hand, from what I've heard of the story, the identification wouldn't normally sufficient for a conviction - there was no other evidence, IIRC. That being the case, the identification shouldn't have been admissible.
I suspect that the judge just put things very badly. Very badly indeed.
EDIT: Note also that the Indy is here reporting what the local paper says, so there's ample scope for Chinese Whispers.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 14 Jan 2009, 15:23,
Reply)
That doesn't even make sense
If 'being believable' was something that could disclude you from giving evidence then the whole trial system becomes useless; you can't have a trial without evidence, and you can't have evidence without reputable witnesses.
I'm definitely missing something.
(
Jessie © needs pirate name suggestions, Wed 14 Jan 2009, 15:25,
Reply)
As I said a moment ago...
... I suspect a combination of poor phrasing by the judge and sensationalist and sloppy reporting by the world.
Just a thought.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 14 Jan 2009, 15:28,
Reply)
An out of touch Judge who can't express and explain himself in general terms for the masses,
and the suggestion of sloppy reporting by the media?
Steady on now fella, that's outlandish talk right there ;)
(
The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on, Wed 14 Jan 2009, 15:30,
Reply)
I'd ask you to back up these outlandish claims with random links from the internet
but you'd be here all afternoon doing it with the wealth of examples available ;)
(
The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on, Wed 14 Jan 2009, 15:34,
Reply)