An example: pristine and perfect.
P2 - “No idea how much this bungled case has cost so far but IMO you couldn't ask for a clearer example of legal and regulatory incompetence by CASA and why Dr Aleck (and his Iron Ring sycophants) need to be sent packing ASAP.”
CASA does have a piss poor record “in court”. They can bully, sway and bullshit the AAT lightweights – but when it comes to 'testing' the evidence they've dreamed up – 'Poof' it don't withstand the test. How many mugs have taken on CASA in the AAT – to save a few bucks? Then departed in tears?
Jurisprudence – despite the rumours – is alive and well. Want to make a case against – in court – well, its always better to have all the ducks in a row – lest you get your bottom smacked by a judge.
The first was if the contaminants in the fuel tanks had been there as the result of human intervention, the second was if it was done as a deliberate act of sabotage, and the third was if it had been Josh Hoch who had committed the alleged acts.
Mr Henry said it was the third that "was always the prosecution's real challenge" and that they also had to prove motive, opportunity and that he had knowledge that only the offender would know.
You do see the difference – in the AAT what CASA says is treated as gospel – in a court; they must prove it – beyond a reasonable doubt. They hardly ever can – no legal talent – just a reliance on the fact that “CASA say's so”. Bollocks...
Hoch is guilty? – fine – prove it. You see the 'law' is not what Aleck says it should be; but what a Judge 'knows' it to be–
Amateurs, they've done no time, don't know nothing, come on girl. (Holmes).
P2 - “No idea how much this bungled case has cost so far but IMO you couldn't ask for a clearer example of legal and regulatory incompetence by CASA and why Dr Aleck (and his Iron Ring sycophants) need to be sent packing ASAP.”
CASA does have a piss poor record “in court”. They can bully, sway and bullshit the AAT lightweights – but when it comes to 'testing' the evidence they've dreamed up – 'Poof' it don't withstand the test. How many mugs have taken on CASA in the AAT – to save a few bucks? Then departed in tears?
Jurisprudence – despite the rumours – is alive and well. Want to make a case against – in court – well, its always better to have all the ducks in a row – lest you get your bottom smacked by a judge.
The first was if the contaminants in the fuel tanks had been there as the result of human intervention, the second was if it was done as a deliberate act of sabotage, and the third was if it had been Josh Hoch who had committed the alleged acts.
Mr Henry said it was the third that "was always the prosecution's real challenge" and that they also had to prove motive, opportunity and that he had knowledge that only the offender would know.
You do see the difference – in the AAT what CASA says is treated as gospel – in a court; they must prove it – beyond a reasonable doubt. They hardly ever can – no legal talent – just a reliance on the fact that “CASA say's so”. Bollocks...
Hoch is guilty? – fine – prove it. You see the 'law' is not what Aleck says it should be; but what a Judge 'knows' it to be–
Amateurs, they've done no time, don't know nothing, come on girl. (Holmes).