Recent content by mirage1

Yes she was laughably biased when she asserted ' it didn't hit him, so it doesn't matter'. It should be obvious how unprofessional those words were and how it was over reach to just assert that. Regardless, asserting her opinion is not the same as excluding the possibility of something being...

Again, no expert RULED OUT being hit by a car. SOme said they did not believe he was, or injuries were not consistent, which is NOT the same as excluding a car hitting him. This is a super super important point [personalizing]

That is not the same as ruling out he was hit by a car. There is a clear distinction.

The witnesses maintained she said she hit him, not as a question. <modsnip - rude, personalizing>

But you you put in the time and you don't know the truth. I never watched any documentary btw. I'm only interested in fact and evidence.

As I understand not a single expert ruled out he was hit by a car. The defense played a deceptive game in tricking people into believing they did, which seems to be crucial in creating reasonable doubt. Saying injuries were 'not consistent' is not the same as excluding he was hit by a car! It...

I think it was a very simple case once you swept aside the nonsense. I mean she literally turned up at the crime scene at 6am and confessed she hit him , multiple times which was heard by multiple independent witnesses. Something which has been laughably brushed aside. What innocent person turns...

<modsnip: personalizing> You have reasonable doubt because there was no blood on the car when that was not required in the slightest for the prosecution theory just demonstrates this. Might as well say he had no broken bones therefore he was not hit by a car, reasonable doubt!!

This is the grey area, the defense exploited. There are too many variables to predict what kind of injuries we should expect from a vehicle impact. There could literally be low evidence of impact if it was slow enough to just knock him over and he was enough padding from clothing. You can still...

The defense claim he was placed outside with a fresh head wound, so the bleeding should have continued unless a person bleeds only a very short amount of time from a serious head would. There is a lot of assumption on how much bleeding should be expected from that wound in that weather, again...

No evidence of a vehicle hitting him other than serious blunt force trauma to his head? <modsnip> it still does not explain the lack of blood, because he should have still bled in the snow if she dropped outside in the snow. So the lack of blood is a red herring. In reality, the wound just...

I'm not interested in drama, only evidence. If he was hit at low speed its difficult to have clear evidence of being hit by a car especially in snow. I have seen people get hit at speed and get right up. He was clearly hit hard enough to get knocked out. The theory he was dragged there from...

So the defenses theory of random people just beating him to death and leaving him to die, and a grand conspiracy to frame her, was taken seriously by the jury? What a joke. A terrible day for the justice system.

All i kept hearing about was intent to kill, when murder is obviously much broader. When you feed someone deadly mushrooms intentionally I think it qualifies for this.

I think many are not understanding the criteria for murder in australia. You don't even need intent to kill.