- Joined
- Aug 1, 2012
- Messages
- 19,652
- Reaction score
- 16,760
You people have too much spare time on your hands.
Yes she's a thief as well in your eyes!If it was in a charity box to be donated & she took it, it's stealing.
If Reynolds wanted her staff you have some of the clothing, she would have said before taking to be donated, take what you want.
Sad heyYou people have too much spare time on your hands.
I just don't believe some of her BS.Yes she's a thief as well in your eyes!
Maybe she used it that night to cover up when leaving and donated it herself at a later date with the rest of the items? Got any pics of her wearing Reynolds old jacket as well at another time?
Do you ever stop hounding and nit-picking every issue you can concerning Brittany.
I think I said on here in an earlier post....thank God you weren't on the Jury.I just don't believe some of her BS.
Maybe she used it as underwear. As she wasn't wearing any that night.
As if you think.I think I said on here in an earlier post....thank God you weren't on the Jury.
Ok that's fine. No problem Obvious that we won't find any concensus or sensible discussion on the issue, so not pursuing it further with you.As if you think.
Been on several juries.
I listen to the evidence & don't believe all, just cause they are the same sex as me.
Not me Wendy, I have no idea who to believe."Innocent" in the sense that she is still legally able to be believed until and unless he is acquitted. The allegation still stands and neither party can be adjudged "guilty".
We have had an overwhelming majority of posts on here prepared to believe BL and not apparently counternance any possibility that BH is telling the truth that BL sexually assaulted her whilst she was drunk and unable to give consent.
My view is they each have as much right as the other to be believed.
Majority on here via discussion have steadfastly made up their minds she is the guilty party.
Many, many mistakes and dumb stuff done by so, so many in this case starting with Higgins, BL, the security staff, Reynolds and her COS, police, etc etc.Not me Wendy, I have no idea who to believe.
What I do know is the ACT DPP should never have prosecuted the case against BL, it was never going to succeed. And CH10 should never have broadcast the BH interview. They are relying on the "truth" defence and that shouldn't succeed either based on the same reasons.
Always a Bulldog
The main issue with securing a conviction (or CH10 airing the story) as I see it is there are no forensics and no witnesses. Nothing to prove that anything actually occurred. In most cases one or both are available for the prosecution to succeed.Many, many mistakes and dumb stuff done by so, so many in this case starting with Higgins, BL, the security staff, Reynolds and her COS, police, etc etc.
Both DPP and Sofronoff concurred that there was enough of a case to proceed with the accusation and that it should be prosecuted. Why?
But yeah impossible to succeed (if it's true) if no witnesses and it's a case of he said:: she said.
I said earlier, it's opened up many young womens eyes on how heavy a burden it is to get a conviction and many won't want to put themselves thru it. There's a huge backlash on socials and their responsibility to keep out of any perceived arms way when getting wasted.
Anyway it is what it is. Hopefully they all pull through it. Bruce went to a Liberal Party event on the weekend so he will be welcomed back into the fold and Higgins has a job so can move on.... % believe him and % believe her and they can gravitate to their own sympathizers I guess. They'll be ok if/when it all dies down.
I could be tortured & wouldn't give up secrets. Unless I was forced to watch Bulldogs games on loop & then I would spill my guts.Expecting you to keep your word about the email address info I was fearful about you passing on. Glad that issue is on record here now so I guess I have to thank you for your outburst.
I think you've done enough damage in those threads you created with twisted half truths and bs you've sprouted already thanks.I could be tortured & wouldn't give up secrets. Unless I was forced to watch Bulldogs games on loop & then I would spill my guts.
Their case is based about the law of probability isn't it that in his plying her with drinks. Signing her into PH. Spending 45? mins there giving 3 different reasons why he wanted access. Leaving without the drunk woman he escorted there. He wasn't actually named so that must help Ch 10? I don't know either how it will all play out.The main issue with securing a conviction (or CH10 airing the story) as I see it is there are no forensics and no witnesses. Nothing to prove that anything actually occurred. In most cases one or both are available for the prosecution to succeed.
Always a Bulldog
She didn’t even leave ‘that night’.I just don't believe some of her BS.
straitjacket.Oh that’s right - Canberra is cold - need a jacket .
Invite people to that conversation. Or does the conversation starter have to invite others.I think you've done enough damage in those threads you created with twisted half truths and bs you've sprouted already thanks.
Just an example of the kind of tired and emotional stuff you do.Invite people to that conversation. Or does the conversation starter have to invite others.
There are some I left & I think you replied to it & I can't view it any more.