Rob Photosby wrote:
Whatever happened to the notion of innocent until proven guilty?

That press release and the subsequent media coverage, complete with full name and photos of the alleged offender, are presented in such a way that I wonder if the alleged offender's legal team will be arguing to have the charges dismissed because their client's reputation has been so tarnished by the media reporting that it is no longer possible to secure a fair trial.

Jac Knight wrote:
There's an open investigation and enough evidence that suggests this has happened before, they do not release photos and information unless they are not pleading for other victims to come forward. I don't know how things work legally in australia but due to the sensitive nature of the allegations and information this case will likely be seen by a judge alone and behind close doors no media allowed.

We share a common legal heritage, so it is interesting that things have evolved so differently.

The rights of the accused seem to be a bit more closely guarded over here.  It does not matter that the legal proceedings may be behind closed doors. As they say, when mud is hurled, some of it always sticks, which is not a good outcome if the accused happens to be innocent.

Jac Knight wrote:
due to the sensitive nature of the allegations and information this case will likely be seen by a judge alone and behind close doors no media allowed.

What so sensitive about this case?  Do you know more about this case, or you are just as clueless as everyone here?  It is not like Prince William vs. another hot babe? 
I would rather wait until their investigation is over and look at the fact.  People lie.

Rob Photosby wrote:
Whatever happened to the notion of innocent until proven guilty?

That press release and the subsequent media coverage, complete with full name and photos of the alleged offender, are presented in such a way that I wonder if the alleged offender's legal team will be arguing to have the charges dismissed because their client's reputation has been so tarnished by the media reporting that it is no longer possible to secure a fair trial.

This has absolutely nothing to do w/ the notion of "innocent until proven guilty."

1. When a person is charged, the assumption is that the prosecutor's think there is enough evidence to warrant a conviction at trial.

2. Also when a person is charged, said charge becomes a matter of the public record. A loss of privacy & reputation is a matter for the defendant to deal with.

3. People may whine "whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'" all they want but there neglecting that the FULL quote is "innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW.."

Farenell Photography wrote:
This has absolutely nothing to do w/ the notion of "innocent until proven guilty."

1. When a person is charged, the assumption is that the prosecutor's think there is enough evidence to warrant a conviction at trial.

2. Also when a person is charged, said charge becomes a matter of the public record. A loss of privacy & reputation is a matter for the defendant to deal with.

3. People may whine "whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'" all they want but there neglecting that the FULL quote is "innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW.."

Well in Canada it's "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal"

and the US it's not cited by the constitution, but that isn't the point here.  His lawyer could make a case that the coverage is impacting the potential jury pool.

Rob Photosby wrote:
Whatever happened to the notion of innocent until proven guilty?

That press release and the subsequent media coverage, complete with full name and photos of the alleged offender, are presented in such a way that I wonder if the alleged offender's legal team will be arguing to have the charges dismissed because their client's reputation has been so tarnished by the media reporting that it is no longer possible to secure a fair trial.

There have been quite a few on-line attacks towards both him and the victim, so I agree with you that innocent til proven guilty has gone out the window on many levels. I also find it disgusting how people are also making irresponsible judgment calls on the victim as well. People who are clueless should keep their mouths shut, until facts surface.

KelliOnLineGlamourNude  wrote:
I also find it disgusting how people are also making irresponsible judgment calls on the victim as well. People who are clueless should keep their mouths shut, until facts surface.

If you follow your own rules, you should not judge other either.  You don't know any more than anyone of us here on MM.  I am just saying.

Connor Photography wrote:

If you follow your own rules, you should not judge other either.  You don't know any more than anyone of us here on MM.  I am just saying.

You're telling me to not have a negative opinion of people making judgment calls on what they don't know?

Okay.

KelliOnLineGlamourNude  wrote:

You're telling me to not have a negative opinion of people making judgment calls on what they don't know?

Okay.

No, if you have a negative opinion of people, just keep it to yourself. Live by your own rule, walk the talk. 

Connor Photography wrote:

No, if you have a negative opinion of people, just keep it to yourself. Live by your own rule, walk the talk. 

I didn't say not to have a negative opinion of negative people, I said people who don't know what they're talking about should be quiet. It was really straight forward.

But I guess u did the opposite of what I suggested. Either that or your blood sugar is low.

LightDreams wrote:
If he's innocent, they've completely publicly convicted him and destroyed him, without any due process.  That would be a massive misuse of power and of the proper police role in the process.

You have identified the essence of the problem. 

The man may well be guilty, but the police's media release and consequent media coverage have been written in a way that seems to presume guilt and would be considered prejudicial to receiving a fair trial on this side of the Pacific.

CottonCandie wrote:
Typical 1st post is typical.

Police are forever posting the personal info of captured 'suspects'.

Modem mayhem narcissists AHEM, members,  are always so concerned about how they can apply utterly unrelated situations to themselves. Especially anything scandalous.

In conclusion, get it together folks. This too, shall pass.

Are you  effing kidding me?? This is relevant, to all of us.