High profile crimes

[chuk_77]

This is not a discussion of the locked thread as much as what makes one case a higer profile than another.

The Jill Meagher case was talked about here 

So was Keishas murder even before it became a murder

And there have been more, so I do wonder why the other mention no names one was locked? 

Anyone able to shed light on it without discussing a locked thread?

[azureline**]

I did say vague! lol

[freakiness]

---

@chuk_77 wrote:

thanks, am and kelso. that makes sense. My imagination took over a bit with just who was really reading the boards 😮

But then my imagination also took over hearing about a guy that was buried at the beach waist deep and needed rescuing. The real reason was nothing like the mob hit that was going through me head 😄

---

I'd hazard and guess that someone is trying to shut someone else up.  :D:D:D

Retribution!  the new, old TV show.

[imastawka]

*pepe wrote:

they started locking such threads when a poster kicked up a huge stink over a case not yet before the courts being discussed - intimating that it was illegal as it could jeopardise the outcome of the trial.

_________________________________________________________________

This could be true.   How do you know whether or not you are discussing the case

with a potential juror?    And maybe prejudice a potential juror's outlook

[lalau74]

it's a current news story broadcast on radio, tv, online and in print. It's a story in the public domain and there is no legal reason why a person who is not directly connected to the case (eg a member of the jury) cannot publicly discuss it.

[imastawka]

---

lalau74 wrote:

it's a current news story broadcast on radio, tv, online and in print. It's a story in the public domain and there is no legal reason why a person who is not directly connected to the case (eg a member of the jury) cannot publicly discuss it.

---

Your statement makes no sense.  How is a member of a jury not

connected to the case?

[*pepe]

---

@imastawka wrote:

@*pepe wrote:

they started locking such threads when a poster kicked up a huge stink over a case not yet before the courts being discussed - intimating that it was illegal as it could jeopardise the outcome of the trial.

_________________________________________________________________

This could be true.   How do you know whether or not you are discussing the case

with a potential juror?    And maybe prejudice a potential juror's outlook

---

you are aware that potential jurors are asked questions regarding their knowledge and opinions on the case yeah?

[lalau74]

Sorry, it was gibberish. my mistake.

Any person who is not directly connected to the case may make public comment.

No one directly connected to the case, eg a memebr of the jury can make such comment.

So far, no one has been selected as either judge or jury in this case.

[imastawka]

I am aware.  I am also aware of human nature.

When asked that question, some would be prepared to lie

[*pepe]

so what you are saying here is that no crime should be discussd in case a liar should be selected for jury duty then.

[imastawka]

I don't think I want to continue the discussion right now.

It may be glitches,  But there was a lot more to my previous post.

And it doesn't say it was edited