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

Pars, "it was not a criminal trial" Correct. So why is he being...

First 137 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
JACK

20,599 Posts.

14

21/04/24

16:51

Post #: 73445351
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

Pars,

"it was not a criminal trial"

Correct.

So why is he being judged as a rapist the length amd breadth of Australia by the media, Pollies, etc etc etc?

Can you remember what the decision was from the criminal trial not that long ago?
1 Upvote

Reply

There are more pages in this discussion • 12 more messages in this thread...

First 137 Last