JT> Looking at people convicted in court is rather interesting. You
 JT> can't judge a book by it's cover, the best groomed and dressed
 JT> gentlemen are the biggest crims, and the scrubbiest hobos are
 JT> the innocent ones. Either way though, it depends on how much
 JT> they paid their lawyer. 

  The lawyer helps, but a normal bigotted jury has preconceptions and
tends to judge the accused on what they see and hear on the day. No
one trusts lawyers. It's really weird. Everyone gets a "feeling" about
what's happening. You know you're not being told everything, so you
fill in the gaps with feelings, impressions, attitudes.

 JT> My BIL lives in newtown, and when my sister moved over there,
 JT> she had a bit of a culture shock when it was the norm to keep
 JT> all the doors and windows locked all the time and not wander
 JT> around at night. In was a bit of a contrast to the original
 JT> quiet area.

  Newtown was never quiet, but 40 years ago Mum ran a residential, and
she used to leave the key in the front door. We were not robbed for
nearly 30 years... but it changed. Now it needs bars on the windows,
but that's not Newtown so much as the change in attitude in Australia.
I'd never live there now...

 JT> Those pink and purple coloured hair peoples are a bit weird
 JT> too.

  Yair. Newtown was a tough, poor, working-class suburb where people
stuck together no matter what and took care of their own troubles. We
kids lived on the street. Now it's freaks, poofters, druggies and
Christ knows what. It used to be central and close in the days when
trams and trains ruled, but now it's so congested by parked cars it's
basically useless, and I can't see it ever developing the "village"
atmosphere of Balmain or Glebe. Poofters tend to be basically insular.

 BL> A classic example was the antique dealer who chased the buglar
 BL> and shot him in the back. His problem was proving he was in
 BL> fear of his life. Once it got before the jury, they were quite
 BL> happy to turn him loose.

 JT> Shoot to kill. I bet the burglar would get away with it if the
 JT> owner missed. 

  That's true too. A dead body has trouble telling its side of the
story.

 BL> Once you are charged, the Media is not allowed to comment until
 BL> *after* the trial.

 JT> Even if it was published after, they can and do word it
 JT> differently if they want to emphasise a certain point.

  Libel laws in Australia are rather silly. You actually get the
opposite: a criminal who is obviously guilty but got away with it, and
in order to do the story, the Media has to glorify him. If they so
much as *suggest* his guilt (unless there is a public interest
involved like a politician), then they get sued. Neville Wran made $2M
out of that... tempting them to libel him and then suing for damages! 

  The Media has its big chance *before* the person is charged. And
even then you see odd things. Senator Bob Wood is giving them a field
day. It's public interest, so all they have to be is true. He has not
been charged with anything. If he is charged and brought before a
court it is sub judice, and they have to shut right up.

  But then you get the oddity of the pedophile in South Africa. He
has *not* been charged, and he is in another country anyway, where
Australian Law does not apply, but the Media is pussy-footing around
hiding his face.

Regards,
Bob
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---