Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Well this is a website. This is not a legal document or case.
|
Whereas that's obviously true I'm not sure how that makes much difference? All I can assume is they're putting the information out there in an attempt to defend his character. Successful or not isn't what I'm commenting on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
But if you're willing to take out of context Tweets from a advocacy website for him which they themselves sourced from a third party and consider that 'new evidence' then that's a pretty low bar to clear. What happens when they publish something else? A previously unknown witness sending a anonymous letter? A Facebook post etc etc.
|
Aren't you jumping the gun a bit by saying I'm taking them out of context? Who knows what the context is? They appear to be suggesting one thing but that could be anything - it's for the inquiry to decide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Then the correct place to air this new evidence is in a court room and not an internet website. In a court room the evidence can be properly examined, the crown can mount a challenge to the appeal, they can make an argument as to the relevance of the evidence on the verdict of the case.
I would prefer a court makes these decisions and not people on Twitter.
|
Again, damage limitation is all I can assume it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
The victim here was no real ability to respond to these allegations and nor should she have too.
|
I don't think that's in doubt?