In July 2007, after a 66-day inquest, New South Wales Deputy State Coroner Jacqueline Milledge ruled there was enough evidence to charge known persons over her death.
Letterio Silvestri and Ryan Kuchel pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice, while Wilhelm was charged with manslaughter and supplying a prohibited drug.
The jury has been told the Brisbane mother died after consuming a toxic combination of alcohol and the drug GHB - also known as fantasy or liquid ecstasy - hours after boarding the P&O cruise ship Pacific Sky in September 2002.
She was found naked on the floor of a cabin belonging to Wilhelm, with whom she had earlier had sex.
The New South Wales Supreme Court jury of seven women and five men retired last Tuesday after a four-week trial, with Justice Roderick Howie urging them to "be courageous''.
After accepting Wilhelm's guilty plea to supplying Brimble with the GHB, judge Roderick Howie attacked the 2006 inquest, presided over by Deputy State Coroner Jacqueline Milledge, describing it as inciting a trial by media based on rumour, conjecture, hysteria and prejudice.
"The coronial inquiry was, to the extent to which I am aware of it, unfortunate in that it allowed a lot of material -- which ultimately was irrelevant -- to be exposed to the media," Justice Howie said.."
You readers may already have an idea that I personally believe the legal system we have in Australia is designed to deliver a lot of money to Judges, Barristers and lawyers, and certainly not about giving the people real justice.
This is a case where I believe we see that so apparently that the courts involvement is an embarrassment to justice, and the judges comments are an afront to human dignity and an oafish, personal enditement of the character of a judge who appears to believe the defendents "story" (calling it evidence) and disregarding all the other statements collected from countless others which refutes, dissagrees, and points to inconsistancies in the defence.
What seems to be a case of a group of predatory men out to drug a woman for their own gratification, sexual use and humiliation has come undone and only a few paltry charges remain, perverting the course of justice (lying under oath?) and supply a dangerous drug. (GBH)
The recording of an almost unconcious woman participating in acts with the men, apparently in no condition to give concent, not relevent.
The statements by many other women saying they were harrassed by the men and offered a "private party", not relevent.
The statements by relatives that the victim was seeking a headache releif, not relevent.
The statements by relatives that the defendant was not of the character to agree to the ensuing events of that night, not relevent.
The list goes on, the judge seems to have only considered the statements of men who could be in serious trouble if events occurred as they seemed to rather than as they have told the court they did.
Consider this story, a woman , a little bit drunk and happy, is heading out of a common area seeking a panadol, when she encounters a man who says he can give her one, she's in a good mood and has no reason to distrust another passenger and accepts his offer of help.
They say she agreed to it all, she is not there to defend herself, she could have agreed to "take a panadol" and they could have given her GBH.
The rest of the nights events are said by the Judge to have been concentual, sex with at least one of the men, recordings of gross indecent acts and sexual depravity, humiliation both verbal and physical, and all of it whilst she appeared to be almost unconcious, yet the judge seems to be saying that she had agreed to it.
We need to put a stop to judgements like this, if there is no evidence a judge should reject the case on that basis, not make statements that say it's ok to do what these men quite obviously seem to have done, and got away with doing.
The judge in my opinion is an abomination to justice, . . I hope the bastard sleeps well with his blood money.
.
5 comments:
It seems that women are of no consequence in this country. Some years ago a judge ruled that it was ok for a man to rape his wife - the judge stated that there is no such thing as rape in a marriage.
Life means very little in the Australian legal system - sentences for stealing and fraud are more harsh than for killing or abusing another human being.
Are we still trapped in the colonial days when women and children were considered "chattels"?
Some of these judges and solicitors
need to be locked up before anyone
else. Crime is an industry, and the
legal profession just love appeals.
Judges are giving soft sentences to keep all their barrister mates on the bar happy with fat wallets at the expense of the victims of
crime. How do they sleep at night?
The problem is that if we get rid of them they just end up in politics.
It seems that the judiciary is still a 19th century misogynistic club, where money matters more than human suffering and power is used to control the community as well as in incomprehensible interpretaion of any and every law to suit themselves.
The judge seems to me to be saying that it doesn't matter about the victim or even the victims families rights to see justice served on behalf of their kin, what matters is getting a result and finishing a problem case so that it won't keep popping it head up.
Judges are so out of touch with community expectations and are far too slow and expensive and are relying on the fact that there aren't enough of them to continue milking the money out of the taxpayer at an astonishing rate.
Your mum likes tomato paste too
Post a Comment