There's tons of accusations that never made it to court. An NZ MP has come out just yesterday I think and talked about being groped by him. http://www.smh.com.au/world/new-zea...is-during-radio-interview-20140704-zsvfd.html
Even that's comparatively short, given his age I wouldn't be surprised if the only way he leaves prison is feet first.
I would, except the last I heard from him he had transitioned from fun, blow shit up on the weekends redneck to tweaker copper thief redneck and got kicked back to the states.
I believe it is so short because he had to be sentenced to terms that were in place at the time of the offenses If he committed these crimes today he would have faced a minimum of 10 years. One of my friends has just phoned me and told me that she knows that Rolf Harris is innocent. I asked her "how do you know this?" and she answered she "just knows". She also "just knows" that Robert Hughes and Ariel Castro were innocent I tried to tell her that there is a difference between knowing and believing and unless she heard all the evidence put before the court she couldn't claim to 'just know'. She insisted that she is just good at knowing the truth about such things. She only gets her information from TV as she doesn't read newspapers and doesn't use the internet.
No she actually knew that Lindy Chamberlain was innocent right from the start. it is one of the few court cases we agreed on. She did say that I 'knew' Lindy Chamberlain was innocent. I said 'no I believed Lindy Chamberlain most likely was innocent' but that was based on both evidence (what people who were present at the campsite said about events on that day) and also on lack of evidence (no body, no eye-witness to a murder, no confession). Later evidence (the finding of the matinee jacket, proof that the scientific evidence was wrong) changed me from believing in the likelihood of Lindy's innocence to knowing the Lindy was innocent.
I've known a few "knowers", always drives me nuts. I remember I had a friend who when a lawyer's baby in NZ was kidnapped told everyone she "knew" the mother was behind it and it was all a scam. She also "knew" Lindy killed her baby (and probably still thinks so) and all kinds of other knowings. I feel like its a way of being special, claiming insight that the rest of the world is not enlightened enough to see.
Yes, 'knowers' are very frustrating. i have tried time and time again to explain to this friend the difference between knowledge and belief but she keeps insisting that her beliefs (which are internal thoughts of her own mind) are knowledge refusing to understand that knowledge needs to be based on some form of evidence.
And there's the oddness of not being able to say "I don't know if they are guilty". It's an instant response to the newstory. With the kidnapping I remember my friend talking about how she could tell by the woman's body language that she was behind her baby's abduction and that "she just doesn't look trustworthy". Of course it is exactly this kind of thing that the aus public ran with in the Chamberlain case. People don't want to think rationally because they are emotionally invested in feeling right.
The other big case in the media atm is the Baden-Clay trial. At least it is big up here in Queensland. I'm finding the same thing. A lot of people "know" that he killed her. Maybe he did, but the evidence isn't conclusive either way - we don't even know how she died and for me that is a huge piece of missing evidence. When we have guilty by media, I'm left wondering how we can have a justice system that delivers a fair trial.
My friend knows, just knows, that Baden-Clay is guilty. I have no opinion as I haven't really been following the trial.
No, not just you. He has the face of a typical, big-end-of-town, I'm-more-important-than-you Lib. Oh, roll on the double dissolution!
I wish the Liberals would change the name of their party to something more appropriate, they should be the Conservative Party or something like that.
Abbott and his government are more unpopular than the Gillard government at the moment (and no government has ever been this unpopular so early into a first term). So it's unlikely they won't got a DD (you don't generally pull the trigger if it will blow your head off) so Australia is stuck with them until 2016. If the polls hold it could be first single term government in Australia since the 1930s. The Conservatives are also very much on the nose in both Victoria and Queensland. Both are 1st term governments and both will lose office at the next election if the polls hold. In Victoria is pretty much a given than the Libs will be out the door in November. In Queensland Newman has a bit more breathing room because Queensland doesn't got the polls till early next year but when you're looking at going from a massive majority to losing office in 3 years, it's really really bad. Oh and Newman could be one of those to lose his seat.
Tasmania has recently elected a Liberal government because support for the liberal is strong in the central and northern electorates, but less so in the two Southern electorates that includes the voters of Greater Hobart. Anyone got any opinions on how many things in the budget will fail to get through?