Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[Rollypolly1]

A charge is laid, and then everything that is submitted within the hearing is called "evidence". These are simple dictionary definitions.

Sorry mate. Utterly untrue. What is and what is not evidence is decieded by the prosecution, defence council and the judge BEFORE the case begins. Given how sanctimonious you are about legalese, i'd have expected you to've known this.

That would depend on whether the authority (in this case, the judge or magistrate or whatever) decides that the evidentary value of mine and my buddies' claims met the required standard or not.

Err no, like i said, you will NEVER win a case with zero circumstantial and material evidence and your buddy as the only witness. You cannot show me a SINGLE case decieded in this fashion anywhere in the world.

Sigh.

Yeah, a bit of a low-blow i admit, but still true, innit ?

 

[Rollypolly1]

here's possibly a balance of probability that he said it, but beyond reasonable doubt? Not for me.

Well you aint a white Saffie growing up in apartheid era either.

 

[ozone]

No, i am having a jibe at the Australian legal system- which is based in structure to the British legal system but is NOT the same.

You are american then?

 

[Rollypolly1]

You are american then?

No. And as i said, my nationality is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[ozone]

No. And as i said, my nationality is irrelevant to this discussion.

Well IN MY OPINION it is important. You seem to have a lot of slightly bizarre opinions and don't want to accept others. You remind me of Geoff Boycott.

 

[Evermind]

The fact that someone called your mom promiscuous doesn't make it true. To me, if you're going to get riled up over that, you shouldn't be playing international sport. Say something back.

That makes no sense. Just because Harby called Symonds a monkey doesn't make it true, so why is Symonds complaining? Are you gonna blame him for getting riled up? International sportsmen are there because they can bat/bowl/field well, not come up with quick responses to puerile abuse. The policy of "say something back" is 9 times out of 10 going to end up in racist/severely abusive territory.

Much better to ban sledging altogether IMO.

 

[Evermind]

Well IN MY OPINION it is important. You seem to have a lot of slightly bizarre opinions and don't want to accept others. You remind me of Geoff Boycott.

That's FAR to flattering towards rolly. At least Boycott's entertaining.

 

[ozone]

That's FAR to flattering towards rolly. At least Boycott's entertaining.

TBH, some of his posts (not just in this thread) have been hilarious. The lack of logic is really quite comic.

 

[Rollypolly1]

TBH, some of his posts (not just in this thread) have been hilarious. The lack of logic is really quite comic.

Really. Well good to humour you then.
But if you consider a simple point that 'you cannot raise your friend/coworker/teammate as credible witness when there is ZERO material or circumstantial evidence' to be lacking in logic, i suggest you do a bit of reading/researching on how legalese works.

 

[ozone]

Really. Well good to humour you then.
But if you consider a simple point that 'you cannot raise your friend/coworker/teammate as credible witness when there is ZERO material or circumstantial evidence' to be lacking in logic, i suggest you do a bit of reading/researching on how legalese works.

Sorry, are you claiming to know what you're talking about? Because you aren't making sense. My legal knowledge isn't huge, but I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. Many witnesses (although I initially said character witnesses) are a 'friend/coworker/teammate' because these are most likely to be the people who are around their mates incident.

 

[Richard]

C_C?

Haha, never mind, your posting style just reminded me of someone.

You're certainly not the only one either. This one, however, seems even more extreme than C_C. Maybe it's just the break from CW increasing things? Because the similarities are startling, I'd be more surprised if it turned-out not to be than to be.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Sorry, are you claiming to know what you're talking about? Because you aren't making sense. My legal knowledge isn't huge, but I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. Many witnesses (although I initially said character witnesses) are a 'friend/coworker/teammate' because these are most likely to be the people who are around their mates incident.

Funny enough that you are saying this to me, coz this is smack in the middle of my field. My profession is that of an attorney, mate.

As for your character witnesses, you are confused. Character witnesses are brought up from friends/family/co-worker circle to TESTIFY FOR the character of the defendant/claimant.
As in you make a claim vs me when we are totally alone by ourselves in the middle of the park and then you bring forth your friend who goes 'well ozone is a great guy/never lies/is an awesome dude, i testify to that'.
That is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE to you claiming i stole something/said something and you having ZERO material or circumstantial evidence and you raising your friend (who as also there) as proof. That is of ZERO validity, which ANY court will throw out, since your witness is YOUR friend and thus is fundamentally BIASSED in your favour when testifying AGAINST your opponent.
Your friend's testimony against your opponent is valid ONLY in the case of there being circumstantial evidence at play (which is not in this case).

If this wern't true, then two mates would go to a restaurant,eat food not pay the bill but claim to've paid it and then win vs the solitary waiter/waitress, since your 'friend is a witness who's backed you up'.
Sorry, but that is bollocks.
To sum it up, in lack of circumstantial/material evidence, your friend CANNOT testify against your opponent and still be considered a reliable witness.
no judge, not even a circuit-level judge, let alone higher courts, will entertain such a fundamentally biassed case. Is that clear to you now ?

 

[Richard]

BIASSED

Yep, it's C_C.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Yep, it's C_C.

Well, in that case, i am also David Suzuki.
Go figure.

 

[ozone]

What country are you an attorney in? Because you have confused me a bit with that post having already said you're not american. I'm not entirely sure why we're talking about the law and as I have already said my knowledge is fairly limited, but (using you're example) if two mates go up to a bar, drink up, not pay the bill and go to court against the waitress, it will be a situation similar to that of one person coming up against another person. A character witness might then be used for the court to establish the integrity of the parties involved. These character witnesses will not necessarily be positive as they might come from the opposite party. For example, if the two mates prove that the waitress has a recent history of dishonesty, they are likely to win the case. Similarly, if the lawyer of the waitress does his research, he may track down the neighbour of one of the mates who says that they always see Mate (A) skulking around with known criminals. This would influence the court and convince them that the two mates are guilty.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that a witness is oftne a 'mate' of the defendant or prosecutor because these are the people who are more likely to be around the incident.

 

[Richard]

Well, in that case, i am also David Suzuki.
Go figure.

Don't think you ever told us your actual name, but David Suzuki would do fine.

 

[Rollypolly1]

What country are you an attorney in?

Nice try. It is a western nation and i am white. That is as far as i will go with personal info about me at this point.

if two mates go up to a bar, drink up, not pay the bill and go to court against the waitress, it will be a situation similar to that of one person coming up against another person.

Exactly. But if you are defending Symond-Harbhajan situation/drawing parallels to it, then its one mate's word against the waitress counting as 'proof' for the other mate (who was going to pay for both of them).

I guess the point I am trying to make is that a witness is oftne a 'mate' of the defendant or prosecutor because these are the people who are more likely to be around the incident.

And you missed the point again.
There is a HUGE difference between calling up your mate to the box and grilling him/her about what kind of a bloke you are and your mate, who happened to be the only other person there along with you and your adversary, testifying AGAINST your opponent.
In the former case, your mate is testifying FOR your CHARACTER.
In the latter case (which is what is similar to Bhajji-Symonds case), your mate is testifying AGAINST your opponent in a criminal investigation.
Latter case has ZERO merit, because like i said, you cant just accuse me of something without any tangiable proof and then say 'my mom saw you say this, i call my mom'. Sorry, but in a case where a witness is there to testify AGAINST a person and if there is ZERO material/circumstantial evidence to the case, then the neutrality of the witness is of paramount importance.
That is as basic as legalese goes.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Don't think you ever told us your actual name, but David Suzuki would do fine.

I am under no obligation to provide my real name here.
I find your and a few other's fascination with my personal life/self to be rather besides the point and annoying.

 

[ozone]

That is as basic as legalese goes.

This is going to be the last time I reply to you in relation to Law because I cannot argue with you as I don't really understand half of what you are saying. What I will say is that this is not as basic as you seem to make out it is.

To try to bring this back to cricket, I would have to say that the Indians and the Australians have previous, and this is probably the reason behind the verdict which was reached.

 

[Rollypolly1]

What I will say is that this is not as basic as you seem to make out it is.

Yes it is.

To surmise, you can call your buddy to the stand to testify FOR your character.
But you cannot call your buddy to testify AGAINST me in something only 3 of us heard and there is zero material or factual evidence, because in that case, your buddy is NOT a neutral witness.
Forget about what he/said, she/said, your buddy cannot credibly testify against me even if i killed you and there is no circumstantial or material evidence of me committing the murder, for again, your buddy is NOT a neutral witness to this!

I would have to say that the Indians and the Australians have previous, and this is probably the reason behind the verdict which was reached.

nonsense.
it is purely he-said/she-said case and Procter took decision in favour of similar skin-colored captain. Its just that simple.
Procter has NO BASIS on concluding if Bhajji is telling the truth or if Symonds is, considering there is NO neutral witness to this, there is no material or circumstantial evidence to this and therefore, the benifit of the doubt must ALWAYS go to the defendant.
The decision against Bhajji, from a legal sense, is a total farce and a total mockery of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

I cannot argue with you as I don't really understand half of what you are saying.

No wonder you are blissfully mistaken and failing to realize your erroneous conclusions then.