Just thought I'd pass on the following link to the best local news source here: http://www.alicespringsnews.com.au/

Kieran Finnane is an excellent journo, very well versed on local issues, which unfortunately means she's done a lot of court reporting.

Also Jon Tippett QC is very highly respected in the Territory. Liam could not have it any better on that front.

Edited July 25, 201213 yr by the fork

Civil cases weight in favor of balance of probability rather than undeniable proof which is required in criminal trials to obtain a conviction. Hope that clears your confusion. Liam is lucky that he does not have to be judged on balance of probability for this matter.

PS. I am sure you would have a different opinion of him if he still played for the filth.

In the Simpson case the people in question were dead so they were able to give their side of the story. Basil may have been dead drunk but at least he can testify.

PS. Is that because you have undeniable proof or just the balance of probability?

I thought that....smacks of agenda doesnt it , hmmm !!!

Oh seriously, you are bloody kidding me.

PS. Is that because you have undeniable proof or just the balance of probability?

You would be first to wallop him if he was still magpie with a verbal nulla nulla but that's just BOP.

Oh seriously, you are bloody kidding me.

Hardly...Jurrahs counsel knew it would probably go to trial even before they started. They then only had an 'idea' of the evidence agains them as they would have been provided a brief. What came out in the hearing was even more laughable than the defence suspected. Most witnesses didn tturn up. Why ? is irrelevent, they didnt. The key witness even had to back pedal , other supposedly corroborating witnesses actually muddied the prosecution by offering contradictory evidence.

and it still goes to trial, and you dont think theres something going on here ? seriously , youre kidding me.

As Old and others summise , It always HAD to go to trial. How can any decision be made before the hearing is actually heard, and yet it probably was.

Hardly...Jurrahs counsel knew it would probably go to trial even before they started. They then only had an 'idea' of the evidence agains them as they would have been provided a brief. What came out in the hearing was even more laughable than the defence suspected. Most witnesses didn tturn up. Why ? is irrelevent, they didnt. The key witness even had to back pedal , other supposedly corroborating witnesses actually muddied the prosecution by offering contradictory evidence.

and it still goes to trial, and you dont think theres something going on here ? seriously , youre kidding me.

As Old and others summise , It always HAD to go to trial. How can any decision be made before the hearing is actually heard, and yet it probably was.

Thanx BB59

I always enjoy reading you on EVERY thread. I respect your prof opinion on this and look forward to your posts on EVERY other thread

Thanx BB59

I always enjoy reading you on EVERY thread. I respect your prof opinion on this and look forward to your posts on EVERY other thread

oh dear...thinly disguised sarcasm.

Dont actually offer up anything to refute it, just pot shots.. bravo.

I dont bother with every thread, but dont let that fact actually dilute your cynicism.

HAve you anything to actually add to this discussion or just like sitting in the cheap seats ?

You would be first to wallop him if he was still magpie with a verbal nulla nulla but that's just BOP.

You really don't have a clue; do you?

That, by the way, is BRD.

That, by the way, is BRD.

........BIAAFSF.

It is amazing that this goes on to trial when none of the witnesses can remember anything or even be bothered to turn up!!

I suspect that the prosecutor feels he has an opportunity to cut down a tall poppy, and wont let go.

The 'evidence' presented at least via the press at the committal sounded very garbled and inconsistent, and one would have to wonder how a magistrate could see any likelihood of a prosecution succeeding. I had always thought that that was the criterion - not a determination if guilt but at least a reasonable case, with some credible evidence and / or witnesses.

Lawyers please elaborate.

??

I suspect that the prosecutor feels he has an opportunity to cut down a tall poppy, and wont let go.

.....

careful, some might call that an agenda !! lol

http://www.theage.com.au/national/a-fractured-spirit-20120725-22r2q.html

Really good balanced article on the situation. Respectfully recommend people read it before posting speculative comments.

http://www.theage.co...0725-22r2q.html

Really good balanced article on the situation. Respectfully recommend people read it before posting speculative comments.

very good article. Yuendumu...just this side of anarchy

http://www.theage.co...0725-22r2q.html

Really good balanced article on the situation. Respectfully recommend people read it before posting speculative comments.

Thanks jnr. A very good article about a tragedy called Yuendumu.

So Sept 3 is a hearing to determine when the trial will be?

That doesn't sound like this will be done by the last week of the Trade/Drafting Period when the fringe players will or won't be signed up.

Either get dispensation to demote Jurrah to the RL (which will not come - he isn't injured - he is on trial) or risk him being picked up by another club.

It seems to me that Jurrah's presence on the list in 2013 might be determined by how we go luring FAs during the window in October.

So Sept 3 is a hearing to determine when the trial will be?

That doesn't sound like this will be done by the last week of the Trade/Drafting Period when the fringe players will or won't be signed up.

Either get dispensation to demote Jurrah to the RL (which will not come - he isn't injured - he is on trial) or risk him being picked up by another club.

It seems to me that Jurrah's presence on the list in 2013 might be determined by how we go luring FAs during the window in October.

I know this out there rpfc but Perhaps he will be STILL be injured come the end of the year and placed on LTI list after some ankle surgery.

Perhaps the MFC are being very clever with the constant 2 - 4 weeks for months on end?

So Sept 3 is a hearing to determine when the trial will be?

That doesn't sound like this will be done by the last week of the Trade/Drafting Period when the fringe players will or won't be signed up.

Either get dispensation to demote Jurrah to the RL (which will not come - he isn't injured - he is on trial) or risk him being picked up by another club.

It seems to me that Jurrah's presence on the list in 2013 might be determined by how we go luring FAs during the window in October.

No

The arraignment is only a few months before court recesses. Youd possibly think oct nov and dec have already a full book. Still some get expedited and possibly teh NT's system isnt quite choc a block as say Vics.

A very hard call is looming youd think. No one wants to see Liam particularly disadvantaged but there is the wellbeing of the club as well toconsider. As youve suggested before, anyone on the list has to be able to play or he becomes a new form of list clogger. Some may view that as harsh, but its a reality. This doesnt go to how the club supports him, just where he fits in.

I know this out there rpfc but Perhaps he will be STILL be injured come the end of the year and placed on LTI list after some ankle surgery.

Perhaps the MFC are being very clever with the constant 2 - 4 weeks for months on end?

again...playing the harsh one.... should we be paying long term for a player who cant get on the park ?

Out of curiosity, when is Liam contracted through til ?

Added to my previous post is the issue of Delisted Player Free Agency - essentially any delisted player from Nov 1 to Nov 13 (and another 5 days after the ND for the unlucky few whose clubs don't plan properly) can go to any club they wish for whatever they wish.

This may seem like something worse than letting him go through the draft again, however, IF players are allowed to sign on as Rookies at their choosing, then it may be a easy way of getting him on the RL.

I have no idea whether that is possible and we are treading new waters at the moment, I wonder if anyone at the AFL has asked, or been asked, the question.

My view is that if a player agrees to go on any RL - their should be no problems with it from the AFL or the Players Assoc.

See what happens.

I know this out there rpfc but Perhaps he will be STILL be injured come the end of the year and placed on LTI list after some ankle surgery.

Perhaps the MFC are being very clever with the constant 2 - 4 weeks for months on end?

again...playing the harsh one.... should we be paying long term for a player who cant get on the park ?

Out of curiosity, when is Liam contracted through til ?

October 31 is when ALL contracts go to. The November 1 - 13 Delisted FA Period begins then. I dare say we will be involved in that for a couple of players from better clubs.

OD - There is no LTI going into a new season, that is a rule IN season to allow rookies to replace injured players. So injured players on the Primary List will stay go back on the Primary List before any list is lodged.

Added to my previous post is the issue of Delisted Player Free Agency - essentially any delisted player from Nov 1 to Nov 13 (and another 5 days after the ND for the unlucky few whose clubs don't plan properly) can go to any club they wish for whatever they wish.

This may seem like something worse than letting him go through the draft again, however, IF players are allowed to sign on as Rookies at their choosing, then it may be a easy way of getting him on the RL.

I have no idea whether that is possible and we are treading new waters at the moment, I wonder if anyone at the AFL has asked, or been asked, the question.

My view is that if a player agrees to go on any RL - their should be no problems with it from the AFL or the Players Assoc.

See what happens.

I find it hard to believe that the MFC would not have considered every possibility by now.

I would be exceedingly surprise if the subject has not been discussed with the AFL.

The last thing the MFC / AFL would want is to be seen to be doing the wrong thing by an indigenous player.

For better or worse LJ is on the Melbourne list until this matter reaches a conclusion.

IMO if that is some time in 2013 than that is what will happen.

Not sure I like it but that is my belief.

October 31 is when ALL contracts go to. The November 1 - 13 Delisted FA Period begins then. I dare say we will be involved in that for a couple of players from better clubs.

OD - There is no LTI going into a new season, that is a rule IN season to allow rookies to replace injured players. So injured players on the Primary List will stay go back on the Primary List before any list is lodged.

I did say it was "out there" rpfc.

I am just mystified why we see no progression in his injury and no comment about it by anyone at the club.

Well none that I have seen.

October 31 is when ALL contracts go to. The November 1 - 13 Delisted FA Period begins then. I dare say we will be involved in that for a couple of players from better clubs.

OD - There is no LTI going into a new season, that is a rule IN season to allow rookies to replace injured players. So injured players on the Primary List will stay go back on the Primary List before any list is lodged.

AFL will have our back on this one, pretty sure some special consideration or something can be applied for and put in place to

A. Ensure that he isn't de-listed and has a future in the AFL and

B. If the worst outcome does happen, we wont be caught out by it and will not be at a dis-advantage. And if that outcome isn't good, it would still mean that there is still a possible future beyond him serving time.

It would almost be a good idea for the AFL to create a new list called a 'Consideration list' or something which players can apply to be on. Few rules around it could include that they are not allowed to play any senior games while on the list to keep things fair for other teams and to stop it being abused.

I dont think any AFL team would oppose an idea like that.

is there still going to be a rookie list in 13?

I find it hard to believe that the MFC would not have considered every possibility by now.

I would be exceedingly surprise if the subject has not been discussed with the AFL.

The last thing the MFC / AFL would want is to be seen to be doing the wrong thing by an indigenous player.

For better or worse LJ is on the Melbourne list until this matter reaches a conclusion.

IMO if that is some time in 2013 than that is what will happen.

Not sure I like it but that is my belief.

much in what you say Old Dee Kanobe !!