SweetVenus

@havyatt @JohnOBrien101 And note: this isn’t about BRS as that trial is basically witnesses against each other. Will be an interesting trial to follow. Going to be quite a bit of pre-trial work and what evidence will be allowed to be provided.

@interest7v1 @JohnOBrien101 Only because the DNA evidence places people at the crime scene…when you don’t have eye witnesses.

Question. It seems there is no physical evidence with which to convict Ben Robert’s-Smith; just witness testimony that is years old and possibly hazy. Is this a no win case set up as a distraction aimed at someone who may have been considering a conservative political career?

@havyatt @JohnOBrien101 The reason why it’s better than eye witnesses is regular people (the jury) understand it. Whereas they can view a witness negatively. The old saying is “if you’re guilty have a jury trial but if you didn’t do it have a judge alone trial.

@taipan168 I’m not sure why it’s such an issue full stop. At least it’ll put to bed the entire saga one way or another.

I have no idea why the charging of Ben Roberts-Smith has become a political issue. Isn't it as simple as - you support the rule of law as it stands in Australia (which most so-called "conservatives" claim to do) or you don't?

@FootnotesGuy Completely agree that testing the evidence in Court is the only way to put this all to bed. Pretty clear IMO this is a “we have everything we will ever get” let’s see what is decided situation. Going to be an interesting case.

My thoughts on the BRS arrest. 1. There should be different standards that account for the brutal reality of war, but there are still lines that can’t be crossed. 2. Executing unarmed prisoners is over the line for me. Even if they are the enemy. 3. The fact that it’s difficult to prove to criminal standards doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be attempted if there’s strong reason to believe it’s true. In fact, it’s important to try, otherwise we resign ourselves to being powerless to enforce the lines that are drawn. More extensive thoughts in my video. I agree with some of the sentiments voiced by those dismayed at the arrest, but just don’t reach all the same conclusions. Overall I’m greatly saddened by the whole affair. It’s particularly disappointing that it’s been so slow. I do take great pride in the military and the SAS because overwhelmingly they’re brilliant and professional fighters. And we send them to do violent and dangerous work. But I can’t join in the cries of outrage. The fact that we take great pride in, and place great trust in our elite fighters necessitates contemplating the possibility that on occasion that trust is broken. It’s sad, but must be contemplated as being possible, so that those exceptions can be addressed, and the trust and pride remain. It’s a tragedy that a hero might be so deeply flawed. But that tragedy might be real.

@hbdbrett @JohnOBrien101 Look up why no body cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute (not impossible). Objective facts have a bigger influence on juries than witness evidence. Defence can discredit key witnesses and destroy a case. They struggle against physical evidence.

What physical evidence did you expect there to be? Did you expect his colleagues to wrap up the bodies of the people he killed and cart them around? As far as witness testimony being "hazy," I would have thought that witnessing a man with a prosthetic leg being machined gun to death would be something that would stick in the mind. The adoration of and willingness people seem to have to dismiss war crimes, murder, and destruction is truly disturbing. Does such an attitude make people believe they are some kind of tough guy/girl? Are they trying to compensate for a lack of personality and a completely deflated ego? Or are they of the belief that certain races of humanity aren't worth bothering about?

@havyatt @JohnOBrien101 What are you on about. DNA evidence in criminal trials has been the single biggest factor in obtaining convictions in recent memory. It doesn’t and won’t lie.

@JohnOBrien101 Witness evidence is far more significant than physical evidence.

@sandylanceley @AnthonyWil88320 The case will be re-run under the rules of evidence applicable to a criminal trial. No physical evidence but the testimony of witnesses, some of whom have provided hearsay evidence which is more tightly controlled in criminal proceedings. It’s going to be an interesting case.

@AnthonyWil88320 I could perhaps see a hung jury, but a not guilty is a big stretch based on my reading of the case.

It is standard practice for war crimes charges to be dealt with by civilian courts to ensure impartiality. These charges are not the equivalent of breaking standard military laws

@dunkurtin @van_gone_ From a civil standard you can call him a war criminal and he can’t sue you. But he isn’t a convicted criminal (if found not guilty). What is so hard to understand?

@interest7v1 @van_gone_ Fucking take 5 seconds and look it up instead of spouting this stupid bullshit.

Some of the dumber BRS defenders can't or won't distinguish between a combatant and an unarmed civilian with their hands tied who's in ADF custody. They also can't or won't distinguish between the "fog of war" and just killing someone because you feel like killing them.

@dunkurtin @van_gone_ He doesn’t need to be exonerated. The prosecution must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they don’t do that to a criminal extent (the extent that actually matters) retains his innocence.

@dunkurtin @van_gone_ You’re right. Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one and you’re completely entitled to yours. The fact is if found not guilty he can do everything you and I can and is free to be a regular citizen not convicted of any crime.

@interest7v1 @van_gone_ No it doesnt. Legally not guilty and innocent are not the same. I am not a court of law. I can operate under the standard definition of innocence. If he did it, which he did, he is not innocent. Im also under no obligation to respect you narrative that his defamation finding

@dunkurtin @van_gone_ Wait where have I said anything about siding one way or another. The AFP just need to accept there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. I’m just stating facts but actually glad he has been charged. It resolved it one way or another.

@interest7v1 @van_gone_ Was not necessarily to the same level of evidence as criminal, because while it doesnt need to be, it can be. And in order for it to lead to the AFP making an arrest, likely is. So fuck off with your murder apologism and bullshit expectations we should support a known murderer

@dunkurtin @van_gone_ Which therefore means he is INNOCENT (if found not guilty). He just can’t sue you civilly for saying he has committed war crimes. Both things can be true.

@interest7v1 @van_gone_ Yes the court presumes innocence. We however have no obligation to, and have a legal precedence to say he is likely guilty without it being defamarion, because he is legally considered to have done those things, it just hasnt been criminally proven. So shut the fuck up.

@dunkurtin @van_gone_ In Australia a person retains the presumption of innocence until found guilty. It’s a basic element of our justice system. Civil standard v criminal standard are very different in which I also understand that the way evidence is assesed and dealt with.

@interest7v1 @van_gone_ No, innocent and unconvicted are twp very differnent things. He is, by the balance of probabilities not innocent. So he has no claim to be called innocent. He isnt convicted yet, but he, by all available evidence, is not innocent.

@dunkurtin @van_gone_ Regardless of that fact he is and will remain innocent of such allegations until a court in a criminal trial finds him guilty of such. There is no grey area there.

@interest7v1 @van_gone_ Acrually he has already been found to have more likely than not done it, so while he has not yet been criminally convicted he is,by the weight of probabilities, legally considered a war criminal and can be called as such.

@rights_wrong @havamendelle But until that happens he is an innocent man. A jury (unless BRS chooses a judge trial) must accept that evidence with 0 doubt to convict. Beyond reasonable doubt is significantly harder to achieve than balance of probabilities.

@interest7v1 @havamendelle There’s already enough in the federal court proceeding to convict him. Witness evidence is very powerful.

Two Australian men. The one on the right, Ben Roberts-Smith, the most decorated living Australian war hero who was arrested for alleged war crimes in a public spectacle that will no doubt be remembered as April 7th. On the left, Nick McKenzie, the journalist who spent 5 years investigating Roberts-Smith and the SAS, made career goals off their backs, books, awards, and calls the arrest "justice".

@rights_wrong @havamendelle “Reasonably prospect of success.” My bet is they have nothing more they can get so put it to a jury and see the outcome. If guilty verdict will charge the other 10 investigations, if not-guilty will drop all further investigations.

@havamendelle Let’s see what you say after his criminal trial. Prosecutors don’t chase these cases unless there is a huge chance of a conviction. He’ll get about 20-25 years. What a fall from grace. BRS= murderer+conman.

@RedGreenBC @DjVance15751 He’s innocent at the moment and will remain that way until found guilty. And it should be “allegedly incorrect”.

@DjVance15751 I'm afraid that's incorrect. You can read more here afp.gov.au/crimes/breache…

Do you know how much of a sick freak you have to be for TWENTY-ONE of your fellow Operators to testify against you in civilian court with no other incentive than idk their sense of organizational decorum

@gary_gobble @BrentHodgson Just like your “far right”. Bruce Lehrmann was a fair example of the lefts understanding of innocence a standards of proof. That being said it’s an unfair generalisation just as yours was as well.

@interest7v1 @BrentHodgson What a weird last sentence - genuinely caught me off guard how out-of-place and how stupid it was

No, champ. This is how Australia investigates & charges them as war criminals when faced with credible allegations they’ve killed unarmed guys, disarmed prisoners, and/or civilians. This isn’t the targeting of soldiers. He’s charged because good soldiers themselves spoke up. Meanwhile the far-right thinks licensing war crimes strengthens nations.