From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On Sat, 05 Jul 2025 09:45:22 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

MightyMouse wrote

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate >>>>>> about?
has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it >>>>>> was just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't helping with >>>>>> his
instructions to the jury which were (in essence) that her lies don't >>>>>> matter.

We've seen plenty of TV dramas where an innocent person inculpates
themself by seeking to hide evidence that might tend to make them look >>>>> guilty even though they're not.

Now, of course, they are TV dramas, not real life, but they raise the >>>>> question of whether someone could behave that way in reality.

How sure can we be that the accused in this case has not done that?

And remember, the task for the jury is to find guilt beyond reasonable >>>>> doubt.

I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

TV dramas & much else have brainwashed the populationinto false
expectations on almost everything.

That almost everything is overstated

Good people are attractive,
Bad people are ugly and sport all sorts of tics.
Everyone drives the latest cars, and all dwellings are spick and span, >>>> containing wives with no blemishes.

And where was populism born?

It was around LONG before and TV drama or
even newspapers and even before the romans

True, but the degree is the point.

It was MUCH worse in those days

Even kids are now plugged in with their portable iGismos!

They don't get to vote so that is irrelevant to popularism

But they grow up and vote then. All ready and brainwashed!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Peter Jason wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:14:30 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

MightyMouse wrote

The jury is still deliberating, but what is there to deliberate about? >>>> has she now told enough lies in court to con them into thinking it was >>>> just a 'terrible accident'? and the judge wasn't helping with his
instructions to the jury which were (in essence) that her lies don't
matter.

We've seen plenty of TV dramas where an innocent person inculpates
themself by seeking to hide evidence that might tend to make them look
guilty even though they're not.

Now, of course, they are TV dramas, not real life, but they raisethe
question of whether someone could behave that way in reality.

We know that does happen in reality in other trials, including the
one where the airline pilot shot two individuals in the alpine forests
in victoria and tried that route to get away with it and failed to do that >>

How sure can we be that the accused in this case has not done that?

Certain given that she deliberately didnt poison herself or her kids

And remember, the task for the jury is to find guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

I'm not, I would convince the fools to find her guilty because that is
what she is

And poison has always been a woman's way; throughout history.

poison only comes from something dead,ask the natives
--
Digital Marketing Specialist
24 Hours eCommerce support
Phone 03 67243630
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2