You remember how several pages back, I said that I was not going to try to explain the concept of "similar fact" evidence and its limits? I'm still not going to.K wrote:I wonder what made it inadmissible.Jezza wrote:The second trial ... was dropped due to a "lack of admissible evidence".
George Pell sexual abuse trials and fresh investigation
Moderator: bbmods
-
Jezza
- Posts: 29547
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
- Location: Ponsford End
- Has liked: 272 times
- Been liked: 359 times
When I was studying Evidence at university, they referred to it as "tendency evidence" and "coincidence evidence".Pies4shaw wrote:You remember how several pages back, I said that I was not going to try to explain the concept of "similar fact" evidence and its limits? I'm still not going to.
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | When was this exactly?Jezza wrote:When I was studying Evidence at university, they referred to it as "tendency evidence" and "coincidence evidence".Pies4shaw wrote:You remember how several pages back, I said that I was not going to try to explain the concept of "similar fact" evidence and its limits? I'm still not going to.
Pies4shaw wrote:You remember how several pages back, I said that I was not going to try to explain the concept of "similar fact" evidence and its limits? I'm still not going to.K wrote:...
I wonder what made it inadmissible.
Oh... I guess you're (P4S) saying it's the grouping of the three swimming complaints as one... and each wouldn't stand up on its own...Jezza wrote:...
When I was studying Evidence at university, they referred to it as "tendency evidence" and "coincidence evidence".
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54850
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 134 times
- Been liked: 169 times
Maybe if one system were used uniformly in all cases and all places, instead of all the differences there are now, that would indicate more agreement on what's the best imperfect system. Or else, if there is such agreement, the differences might indicate that societies don't care about having the best imperfect system in all cases (e.g. if it's not 'important enough' to warrant the cost)...David wrote:I think there's definitely something more democratic in theory about a jury (i.e. they are just ordinary citizens from all walks of life), and we need to not get too caught up in elitism and remember that judges, too, may suffer from their own biases and limitations. I think it's clear that our justice system has a lot of components that are frustratingly imperfect, so I guess the only question is whether it's actually possible to improve upon them or whether, like democracy, this is the best worst system available.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ren-checks
That is the way to restore public confidence in the clergy.
That is the way to restore public confidence in the clergy.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54850
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 134 times
- Been liked: 169 times
WWCC were a badly thought out knee jerk reaction to bad publicity. I have no issues with the principle but the (Vic) legislation is a dogs breakfast. Having said that, I agree.Pies4shaw wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/06/armidale-bishop-directs-catholic-schools-to-stop-asking-priests-for-working-with-children-checks
That is the way to restore public confidence in the clergy.
Apparently there's legislation pending (not sure if federal or state) to compel priests to report suspicions of child abuse obtained via the confessional. Again, fine in principle but I have NFI how it could be enforced in practice
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
