Craig McLachlan found not guilty

[davidc4430]

Craig McLachlan found not guilty of assault and indecent assault charges

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-15/craig-mclachlan-not-guilty-of-assault-indecent-assault-charge...

[gewens]

Hello, everyone. It's very important to keep your discussion relevant to the topic. If you have something else to talk about, please start a new thread. Remember irrelevant posts might be removed. Thanks.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@**tippy*toes** wrote:

I get that. And Robert Hughes isn't necessarily guilty because a court of law convicts him, either. Based on what, the words of girls thirty years later? Pfffft...

---

Actually he IS found guilty by a court of law. Duh. 

Courts only have to show Guilty or Not Guilty. Not Guilty means that there was not sufficient evidence to determine that he/she did commit the crime and doesn't mean they're innocent. Robert Hughes was found Guilty. 

---

Did you know Scottish Law actually allows for three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty or not proven. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

Although historically it may be a similar verdict to not guilty, in the present day not proven is typically used by a jury when there is a belief that the defendant is guilty but the crown has not provided sufficient evidence

[domino-710]

But - to be totally fair - Scottish Law - is not the law of this land.

[not_for_sale2025]

Some time ago a poster made comment in another thread that a controversial court ruling of "not guilty" was the end of it, and justice had been served. I don't agree that court rulings are always just. Consider the OJ Simpson trial. I think brilliant lawyers and barristers can win trials because of their shrewd courtroom skills and ability to manipulate legal technicalities, not because they reveal the truth.

[domino-710]

Nailed it - the law has nothing to do with - Justice - it is totally in the hands of who you choose to argue your case.

And - some - are so much better than others.

Always keep in mind - it is not in a Lawyers interest to - bring a case forward - to expedite matters - nor to - Settle.

And - don't ever take telephone calls - get them to text - fax - because - you are charged even for their - 5 minute - good morning - how's your day going etc etc etc  - then the rest. LOL  

[**tippy*toes**]

Nottie, OJ wasn't acquitted because he had great lawyers, he was acquitted because he was black. Can you imagine the riots if he'd gone to prison (at the time)? Which brings up his celebrity, that played a large part to do with the outcome, also. Race or celebrity, I don't know which one got him over the line but perhaps a combination of the two. A white celebrity most likely would have been convicted.

[domino-710]

Wrong - he was aquitted due to incompetent prosecutors.

[**tippy*toes**]

Not so. The evidence was there: OJ Simpson was guilty. That just proves my point that there was an agenda and his race and celebrity were a major factor because even a lousy prosecuting team would have won with the evidence presented at the trial. You don't need a particularly good lawyer when the facts speak for themselves. And they did in this case. The truth wasn't enough because he was a famous sports star who happened to be the right color. 

[**tippy*toes**]

The truth:

[not_for_sale2025]

---

@**tippy*toes** wrote:
Nottie, OJ wasn't acquitted because he had great lawyers, he was acquitted because he was black. Can you imagine the riots if he'd gone to prison (at the time)? Which brings up his celebrity, that played a large part to do with the outcome, also. Race or celebrity, I don't know which one got him over the line but perhaps a combination of the two. A white celebrity most likely would have been convicted.

---

And you don't think his lawyers knew that and used it to the best of their ability to influence the outcome? His lawyers were brilliant.