This one as well:
If I were bringing defamation action related to (among other things) a number of allegations of prisoner executions, I would simply ensure that witnesses I called did not reveal that I was being investigated for even more executions, hitherto unknown to the public.
I thought this was common knowledge?
It was common knowledge that BRS was having his legal bills paid by Stokes/7, this is the first time that it’s been revealed that his key defense witness is also having his lawyers paid for by them too. Throws massive shade on his credibility as a witness.
Yeah sorry I meant the witness not BRS.
I thought the story was that they were charging Channel 7 directly, as in the public company whose shareholders probably DON’T want to be funding a war criminal’s defamation case, rather than Stoles personally?
It gets better
As I said earlier, this is insane… if you’re going to court you need to make sure you are watertight
BRS isn’t and is clearly a fucking lunatic
Probably still a hero which makes it all a little unsavoury
It’s 50/50 he’s just that delusional and thinks his Teflon coating and the copious lies will somehow vindicate him, or he and his counsel are evil geniuses and the whole thing is indeed a circus designed to render a “fair” criminal trial impossible.
Not a lawyer so would love input from one, but isn’t there the capacity to have a judge-only trial in the event that the court can’t be confident that a jury will be able to be empanelled that is uncontaminated by the prejudicial information in the public arena?
I don’t know whether the court makes that decision, or whether it’s the prosecution or defence that makes the argument and applies for a judge-only trial.
This is an absolute cluster fuck. How many of his mates will stand by him if charges start to follow
Assuming that’s at the Australian War Memorial?
Could he potentially have his VC taken back after this if it’s all found to be true or would that require a separate investigation by Veteran Affairs etc?
I’d assume there’s some sort of “fit and proper” test which could be used once everything has run its course. If not, I could see a retrospective law brought in.
It’s a bit of a weird one though, if found guilty. It doesn’t take away from the actions of awarding a VC, which are super strict. But at the same time, you don’t want the stigma of someone with your highest honour being a confirmed war criminal.
In the end, I think he may cop some obstruction of justice charges like old mate did today. But a decent lawyer (ie not the one he currently has…) Would probably be able to introduce enough doubt without concrete evidence so a verdict can’t be reached.
It is.
There’s also a manequin with his kit on it. He’s a big boy.
I don’t know what would happen if he’s charged and convicted. I would imagine that his kit display would be removed. But I don’t see them rescinding his VC.
Can we add “Idiot” to the options in the thread title please?
Fuck me it gets worse when you hear what the post said and his response to it.
Dunning-Kruger effect in full flow with these idiots.
These are troopers yeah?
If I was someone in the army I might be having thoughts about the lack of discipline and just general smarts of our most highly trained special forces.
Why is Kerry Stokes so interested in this guy’s legal defence?
