Lehrmann facing 'millions' in costs

Originally posted by Parsifal: ↑

the only bias I have is to prefer a judges decision over yours. If lehrmann decides to appeal then the judgement of the appeal court will stand and I’ll leave it be

whatever we think on a personal level that’s the only opinion that counts. And it’s not that I think judges are infallible. I know they can bring their own bias into their decision and they may not look at what is before them, or may not understand fully, or may not draw the right conclusions, or may draw the right conclusions for the wrong reason. the lawyers may be good at their job or not and there are probably plenty of the latter around. But in my world endlessly chirping on about thinking I’m right and they are wrong is utterly pointless.

you may think that attitude is foolish, or biased, or stupid - I just understand that there is a difference between the law, justice under the law and justice in our own heads. It’s as simple as that

I’d think the same whatever the outcome because I have the capacity to let go of my opinion. It might not change what I feel about any of the players but I am very well aware that my opinion on the matter is utterly irrelevant

everything in your post is about your own disappointments, beliefs and opinions - your own view of the world. and just one point - that it is about your own experiences is betrayed in your reference to a jury - there was no jury.

I have no need to explain anything to you - go and read the judgement. Spend the time that you are now likely to spend endlessly responding to me because you don’t like my answer, or because you need the mental stimulation, on educating yourself. Or spend it reflecting on why it is so important to you to try to prove me wrong or the judge wrong or Brittany wrong because even if you don’t think so, none of this is relevant to your daily life

Expand

You were doing great until you went down the there was no jury.

It does not matter if the jury is a panel of 12 people or one judge.

Arguments can go either way as to the benefits of either approach.

As it happens, I favour one judge on IQ grounds or at least the probability of a better IQ addressing the case than an average jury's IQ.

Makes no difference to the rest of what I said about Brittany at all.

The police had to 'judge' the situation as well and they did not want the prosecution to go ahead on what they had seen and heard from Brittany. The attorney general has been utterly disgraced in this affair with his judgement overridden by personal bias and bowing to pressure from political forces.

Wokeness makes fools of lots of people when they turn their IQ off.

Your comments about my daily life and proving who is right or wrong are misguided. I enjoy a debate is all. Some people cannot let go of the emotional side of things and also like to accuse others of the same failing. In some family situations such emotion can be a strong plus. In a court of law it is a bad failing. Knowing the difference matters.