TOPIC:

What a load of absolute BS this thread is.

Crime reporters have always released the name of the accused person once Police give the all clear, and as long as its stated they are just allegations there are no problems.

Celebrities are entitled to bugger all special treatment. part of taking the big money is the attention that goes with it.

Freedom of the press is a basic tenant of our society and they should be free to report within the law.


Well theres always one in the crowd.
Bazza states freedom of the press, there is no such thing as the PRESS only report what they want or the editor wants to print.
Im not asking for the press to NOT print a name or photo ONLY once they are Convicted.
The press are usually Judge, Jury and Executioner in ONE.
If found not guilty the stigma and innuendo lasts a life time.
Just ask Lloyd Rainey FOUND NOT GUILTY and look at the press he got, must have cost the world a dozen trees.

How many innocent people end up on criminal trial? My guess would be not many. Not guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it either, it means there is some doubt you didn't. And good lawyers know how to get crims off many charges.

Swans75 wrote: What a load of absolute BS this thread is.

Crime reporters have always released the name of the accused person once Police give the all clear, and as long as its stated they are just allegations there are no problems.

Celebrities are entitled to bugger all special treatment. part of taking the big money is the attention that goes with it.

Freedom of the press is a basic tenant of our society and they should be free to report within the law.


Well theres always one in the crowd.
Bazza states freedom of the press, there is no such thing as the PRESS only report what they want or the editor wants to print.
Im not asking for the press to NOT print a name or photo ONLY once they are Convicted.
The press are usually Judge, Jury and Executioner in ONE.
If found not guilty the stigma and innuendo lasts a life time.
Just ask Lloyd Rainey FOUND NOT GUILTY and look at the press he got, must have cost the world a dozen trees.

One in the crowd - BS, if you reckon the press should be closed down on reporting on court matters in progress and the courts closed to the public and everything dealt with in behind closed doors then knock yourself out convincing the Chief Justice of that. If anything we are moving to more open courts , the current chief justice has suggested allowing cameras in courts for trials for greater exposure. Basically your view is never goner happen and would be a legal anathema.

Rayney was a Barrister accused of murdering his wife who was a Supreme Court Registrar (Junior SC Judge) one of the highest profile homicides in the states history, off course its going to get huge coverage, there would be something wrong if it didn't, I notice Lloyd made full use of the media once he was found not guilty , he didn't mind the cameras then including having his daughters in the mix as well, which is of course is his right.

Larry Bird wrote: How many innocent people end up on criminal trial? My guess would be not many. Not guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it either, it means there is some doubt you didn't. And good lawyers know how to get crims off many charges.

Currently 92% of people charged criminally are convicted either by their own admission or by way of trial.

And yes a NG Verdict means the prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that can be for entire range of reasons.

I have been watching the SBS series on the O J Simpson trial, a clear example of a person acquitted on a misleading defence, who had clearly carried out the crime.

BTW The media coverage of the trial actually assisted him in his defence, the entire trial was covered live on TV and O J used his celebrity status to the max. even signing autographs and making money during it.

On the Corryn Rayney case in my mind there was an incredible amount of circumstantial evidence and evidence about the timing and location of the murder that pointed the finger at the accused.

Given the evidence surrounding their very messy impending divorce and what was at stake I found it incredible "luck" for the husband in that situation that she was taken out at that precise moment in time. I would love to have a coffee with one of those detectives involved in that case.

Grassy wrote: Rather not do that,DD.

You'd probably hit a Raw nerve on that score,especially if you mention the absolute panning they got over it!

Happens a lot, same thing happened in the O J Simpson trial , remember the use of the N work by the Detective , that turned the whole trial into a race issue in the LAPD, the handy side track to deflect the near all black jury away from the facts of the murder.