the game has evolved but Vossy hasn't.
It reeks of double standards to make excuses for Clarkson at North, but not Voss. If Vossy's first 3 seasons yielded a W/L of 3-10 (plus 10 straight losses under Ratts as fill-in), 3-20 and 5-1-17, folks on here would not give any coach the BOD, whatever their previous records says. They would be screaming blue murder.
Still like a bit unfair. What is he basing his opinion on when he says 'its more probable then not she is telling the truth' if there isn't the evidence to prove it? Is that just his opinion?
Sounds like the AFL finding Butters guilty cause the umpire say i heard him say it.
I'm all for tougher judges and sentencing but there needs to be the evidence first to find them guilty or all you have is a testamony which is just a person's version of events isn't it.
I may be missing something but i think he should not comment if the accused is found not guilty.
Yes it is the judge's opinion; his job is to form an opinion, based on the evidence presented, as to guilt or innocence. It was a trail by judge alone so he wasn't directing a jury but determing guilt. Part of that is assessing the truthfulness of each witness's testimony. Cable did not take the stand.
The judge has a responsibility to see that all parties are afforded justice ... within the rules. Commenting on the veracity or otherwise of witnesses, victims, defendants is standard practice.
Cable was found not guilty because of the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He lost another child abuse case in a civil action where the burden of proof is not so onerous. Other women gave evidence of the abuse they suffered as children so there was corroborating evidence, but of a general nature and not of the specific charges.
When did "inocent until proven guilty" become "innocent until proven guilty but your probably guilty anyway"
Gees that'd be nice but stuff like that doesn't happen to us
Judge Bowden said "While I generally accept [her] evidence and have found that Mr Cable has the tendency alleged and I consider it more probable than not that she is telling the truth, I am not persuaded of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in respect of any count on the indictment."
To find Cable not guilty without discussing the difficulties both prosecution and defence had in presenting evidence and without mentioning the apparent truthfulness of the victim's testimony would have left her with a reputation as a liar.
The phrase "the tendency alleged" is in reference to a judge finding in a 2023 civil action that Cable had abused the plaintiff when she was a child.
Judge Bowden is basically saying that Cable probably did abuse the victim but the evidence is insufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. By doing so, he is discharging his responsibilities to both the defendant and the alleged victim.
Still like a bit unfair. What is he basing his opinion on when he says 'its more probable then not she is telling the truth' if there isn't the evidence to prove it? Is that just his opinion?
Sounds like the AFL finding Butters guilty cause the umpire say i heard him say it.
I'm all for tougher judges and sentencing but there needs to be the evidence first to find them guilty or all you have is a testamony which is just a person's version of events isn't it.
I may be missing something but i think he should not comment if the accused is found not guilty.