Share
2,243 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 4424
clock Created with Sketch.
04/03/23
19:42
Share
Originally posted by jlo2012:
↑
You are right, Borski got all he needed from Hart and more, I would suggest. Hart made damaging concessions and was evasive at the worst possible times IMO. He held untenable positions, in stark contrast to other evidence. I'm not sure what you mean by Collinson cross examining Hart? Hart is a defence witness. The trial is in the defence case for the company. Hart has already given his evidence in chief and Collinson re-examined him after he was cross examined by Borski. Hart is finished in the company case but will likely be recalled in the Karantzis defence case. The party who has not called a witness is the one that is entitled to cross examine a witness. The witnesses from here on are defence witnesses and Borski will cross examine each of them. Cross examination allows for leading/closed questioning of witnesses. Borski has been quite impressive and well across the ASIC case IMO. Collinson is past his prime, which was evidenced in his bumbling/rampling opening but improved after that. Remember this matter is on the lower standard of proof being balance of probabilities. A far lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt. Interesting week ahead… wonder if your hero JK will come to Australia or give evidence in his own defence. Amazing how this company that he isn’t even part of the management of anymore is funding his legal fees. Wonder why Richards and Northwood aren’t around to give evidence? Surely they could help clarify those otherwise damning emails if they did? Hmmm…
Expand
You are right about the "cross-examination", I meant to say re-examined. To my knowledge, he has not re-examined Hart after Friday's sessions and it is my understanding that Collinson can re-examine him if he wishes. And for whether Borski "got all he needed from Hart" and Collinson was bumbling etc, we will just have to agree to disagree.