• Re: the (alleged) Mushroom murderer

    From Peter Jason@pj@jostle.com to aus.cars,aus.computers,aus.legal on Sat Jul 5 08:43:58 2025
    From Newsgroup: aus.legal

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 14:51:29 +1000, "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?

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

    True, but the degree is the point. Even kids are now plugged in with
    their portable iGismos!
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Rod Speed@rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com to aus.cars,aus.computers,aus.legal on Sat Jul 5 09:45:22 2025
    From Newsgroup: aus.legal

    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
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mr Jesse J Bruce@manager@jjb.id.au to aus.cars,aus.computers,aus.legal on Sat Jul 26 16:16:04 2025
    From Newsgroup: aus.legal

    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