If Gleeson has resorted to "you should have tried to get out of the way" argument it can only be good for jacks chances.

His job is to provide a case where the player is guilty. He doesn't get to chose his cases, like a barrister would.

That's what the jury is for. The MRP effectively said "we don't know", and now it's up to the jury.

its not about choosing a case, any argument must have merit. What he proffers is ludicrous surely.

its not about choosing a case, any argument must have merit. What he proffers is ludicrous surely.

What would you argue, in his position?

Is it this Gleeson ??

Two most famous of Jackie Gleason's signature lines were " POW! RIGHT ON THE KISSER" and " I'M GONNA SEND YA RIGHT OVER THE MOOOOOOOON"

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by america de cali

18:28

Nathan Schmook:

The jury is now deliberating…

What would you argue, in his position?

I dont need to. I dont see that there IS one. This ought never have got this far. Its only the wimps of the MRP having no balls to nex it. It should have been seen for what it is an accidental crash and left it there. They are always looking for blame, for fault. Sometimes there is none and this is what should have transpired in so much as the MRP issuing a no case to answer, move long. etc.

The NRL must look and laugh at us sometimes.

Nathan Schmook:

Great case from the Dees. Highlighted he had no options.

The key was frame-by-frame footage showing he stopped striding when the ball bounced Lynch's way.

Great job by Viney under questioning.

I'll be shocked if he's guilty.

If its your job to offer a contrary view, you cant say "too hard, I got nothin'"

The Chairman seems to act in the role of a judge. This is a case which would be thrown out by the judge and the jury directed to acquit.

The decision is now in the hands of the jury. We are back in the meeting room waiting for the result. pic.twitter.com/A4HjtRx6wG

18:28

Nathan Schmook:

The jury is now deliberating…

*Drumroll*

If its your job to offer a contrary view, you cant say "too hard, I got nothin'"

I understand this stance. My point is if you cant 'reason' dont. He had nothing.. Makes it farcial...as it is

I dont need to. I dont see that there IS one. This ought never have got this far. Its only the wimps of the MRP having no balls to nex it. It should have been seen for what it is an accidental crash and left it there. They are always looking for blame, for fault. Sometimes there is none and this is what should have transpired in so much as the MRP issuing a no case to answer, move long. etc.

So you are criticising Gleeson for doing his job (offering an opposing case), but cannot even come up with a single argument if you were in his position?!

Gleeson's is clearly smarter than you are, because he did.

No expense spared video wise.

Roos looks like he is about to puke

The decision is now in the hands of the jury. We are back in the meeting room waiting for the result. pic.twitter.com/A4HjtRx6wG

Who's leading the prayer???

So you are criticising Gleeson for doing his job (offering an opposing case), but cannot even come up with a single argument if you were in his position?!

Gleeson's is clearly smarter than you are, because he did.

did he... He should have got out of the way ?? ffs like saying the train should have avoided the truck !! get real ffs

Its Great to see Roosy there supporting Viney.

I understand this stance. My point is if you cant 'reason' dont. He had nothing.. Makes it farcial...as it is

You called him a bozo. What is he supposed to do? In your world:

Gleeson: "I refuse to prosecute this case because I think he's innocent"

Demitriou: "You're fired"

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by Axis of Bob

Roos looks like he is about to puke

Him and me both.

18:31

Comment From Guest

The future of AFL football hangs on this decision. No pressure.

Superb work, sir.

So you are criticising Gleeson for doing his job (offering an opposing case), but cannot even come up with a single argument if you were in his position?!

Gleeson's is clearly smarter than you are, because he did.

If Gleeson thinks a footballer can, in 0.5 of a second, change direction sufficiently to avoid a collision then he's probably not that smart.

Is it this Gleeson ??

I think it is Crazy Guggenheim, used to be good mates with Joe the Bartender.

If Gleeson thinks a footballer can, in 0.5 of a second, change direction sufficiently to avoid a collision then he's probably not that smart.

Well the jury has been out for a while, so maybe his case isn't as bad as you think.