Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

Parsifal your description of the process in Lehrmann's...

First 134 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
bellcurve

9,173 Posts.

506

21/04/24

13:19

Post #: 73443760
Share

Originally posted by Parsifal: ↑

excuse me. But that’s almost precisely what I’m talking about in my previous post. You have no understanding at all of tte law, the matter that was being considered and what the judgment meant

let’s start with some basics

it was not a criminal trial
lehrmannn(maybe a very apt name when you think of its phonetics) instigated the case as a civil matter
the judge had to decide whether channel ten defamed him
an appropriate defence is that of truth
the judge therefore had to decide, whether amongst all the noise, opinions, half truths and lies, on the basis of probability that defence might hold up
the judge decided it did

(if I’ve got the simple version wrong happy to take correction from someone who is familiar with defamation law)

whether there is any consequence to that from the perspective of the law other then channel ten not being required to pay damages - well we shall see, but I doubt it

how that plays out in the reynolds case - I’m curious to see

what happens in Toowoomba- well since circumstances are different, who knows, but he’d sure better be careful not to lie

Expand

Parsifal your description of the process in Lehrmann's defamation suit is exactly as i understand it too.

the way these posters defend Lehrmann make it sound like Justice Lee in the end just flipped a coin.

but they clearly haven't even read reportage of his judgment to even get a smidgeon of context before shooting off their misinformed mouths.

why should they let facts get in the way of their view of the world.

they want to delude themselves that they're as informed as Justice Lee.

they aren't and never will be.

they wear their anti-knowledge tribal membership with pride, like the tossers they are.
5 Upvote

Reply