« FILM-FLAM? | Main | OUR MAN FLINT-HOFF »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

So you could say Counsel Berger found himself in something of a pickle?

All my criminal experience comes from watching The Bill, where nobody ever commits a crime unless its against someone who works at the police station.

Counsel Berger IS something of a pickle. Good bloke, though -- and just to completely hammer a stereotype -- for a lawyer.

The only crim lawyers I know are grubs. Far too matey with their loathesome clients, and they actually enjoy their work- all the commercial lawyers I know hate the job, but like the money.

Rumpole seemed like a good chap. Of course, he wasn't real. Bit of a snag, that.

Hamilton Berger was Perry Mason's weekly pattie ... er ... patsy, wasn't he?

That's the bloke, Hack. One of life's great puzzles is that no matter how often he lost (and it was often, well, every time, actually) he still got to go up against Perry. Surely, SURELY, he had to get replaced.

The Mexican wave? Clearly a menace to society. I do not know how lawyers can bring themselves to defend that sort of person...

This is just beautiful.

I know a bloke whose defence was 'Oh, I killed him but I'm mad aren't I'. He got off on a technicality (policeman wasnt wearing a hat or something when he was arrested) even though the jury all said that the evidence pointed to him doing it as well as the confession. Lawyers don't ya just love em

Russell,

"Getting off on a technicality" is one of my most-disliked pieces of quasi-legal jargon. It's often invoked by the conservative media to explain why an "obvious criminal" wasn't convicted. Certainly, these "technicalities" can be technical, but a closer look suggests that many of them are things like police not affording suspects their rights; to representation, to refuse entry, to refuse a search, to remain silent. So to reduce to a "technicality" a failure of the prosecution to prove, within the law, the elements of the crime, is misleading, and plays on the idea that our society is rife with criminals who beat the system.

I don't know the circumstances of this "bloke" whose story you quote, but such a flippant description of the case doesn't really bear analysis. To whom did the jury say that he looked guilty? To you? To the court? Should evidence "pointing to him doing it" be enough to convict? How was this confession obtained?

The "lawyers are crap" catch-all isn't really very productive. Perhaps your criticisms would be better directed at those who implement the procedural rules (legislators), or those who often consider them more like flexible guidelines (police), rather than those who ensure they are adhered to.

Sorry to turn an amusing anecdote into a rant. Maybe you were just making a gag (love the Sid Waddell stuff, by the way). But this is just something that bothers me.

Peter, you have the right to remain silent. Please?

Hmm. So why didn't he want his DVD back?

hungbunny,
Thanks for your support.
Please, tell me more about African music.
Your friend,
Peter

It's just a technicality but - Go The Dees!

Absolute genius. I'll be laughing about that all evening.

Not while eating noodles, I hope. That could prove awkward.

Tony.T
Damn RIGHT go the Dees!

W/r/t earlier comment...

I apologise for my story being so thin on the facts. My mate was the lawyer who was defending the guy. The reason the guy got off was literally for a policeman not being in full uniform when rights were read - technicality was down to policeman never properly identifying himself during the 'raid' and because he wasn't dressed suitably the suspect clocked him because he was 'threatened'. The ambiguity of the policeman's identity caused the lawyer to pick holes in chain of evidence and all that other stuff that caused the judge to throw out the case even though they caught the guy red-handed - knife in hand when arrested stabbing a yardie multiple times. There was closed circuit tv evidence of the guy being stabbed by the suspect.

The reason I bring up the story is not because I dislike lawyers but because my mate is a self-righteous Oxbridge c*** (i love him though) who thinks he can talk his way out of anything.

Russell,
Sweet. Having been at uni with some self-righteous cunts myself... well... nothing. They're self-righteous cunts. And continue to be so even when they're working for enormous commercial law firms for Philip Morris or some company that fucked a lot of people in a serious way but doesn't want to pay for it.
I think we're actually on the same team here. Good for us. The genuinely self-righteous.

A case in point is the Ketchup-gate saga.

The Bill ? Crime ? Oh, Please.....that crock of garbage should be neatly packaged and sent back to England whence it came. It's gotta be one of the worst 'cop' shows around these days. With Lawyers its all money, money and yet more money. these blokes cost the bloody earth these days and for what ? legal jargonese must be a hell of a subject to learn, let alone understand.

"Go the Dees ?" Well, SECOND place will have to do this year fella's. Sorry.

West Coast: Set up by the VFL/AFL to win flags. Massive advantages. No cred.

You probably also follow Manchester United, The New York Yankees and the SF 49ers. Get back to us when you've had to do it tough.

Brett Pee,

Honestly, if you reckon the Eagles can beat a full-strength Dees on the G on the biggest day of the year, you're dreaming.

We played like dogs and you only got 15 points on us. I would be worried. 3 games clear counts for nothing in the finals.

You have been warned...

Ditto, Peter. Love your work. Go the 'Mons!

I look forward in eager anticipation. We will play you anywhere, any strength and still come through. Do i detect the faint whiff of sour grapes over in Vic land ? Believe me, plenty of sweat and toil have been involved in this years campaign. You obviously haven't been paying attention. Ah....yes, the old conspiracy theories. I know you love 'em over there but our 'success', such as it is, is down to sheer bloody hard work and team togetherness and that is bloody obvious, even to impartial observers. But i do look forward to a challenge....and we won't be found wanting.

Go Eags Go !!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Sweat, toil, sheer hard work? Pah! 8,000 draft concessions say otherwise.

ok. ok. We have a few minor advantages over the little teams out East. But this term all the work is coming together. I love it when a plan comes together. And i know deep down we are not really all THAT hot. But it's an improvement. You must be impressed with our fortitude on the road Tony.

"I love it when a plan comes together."

Should call 'em The E-Team.

I reckon i'm developing a fixation with Peppard- almost an obsession in fact. Maybe it's the easy grin, the neat grey hair or the angle of his cigar....hell it could even be those superb one liners !!! I can even begin to understand your Hasselhoff obsession!!! What am i saying ?

In an earlier post you theorised that i follow (1)Man Utd (2)New York Yankees (3)SF 49 ers. I shoot back with these answers (1) I HATE association Footie and know nothing about it- even less Pommie football. I t sucks Tony and it sucks big time. (2) I have no idea who the New York Yankees are and what sport they represent. (3) I actually know even LESS about Yank Footie than i do about Pommie boreball. BUT i would follow a team with '69 ers' in the title. Just for the crack.

And it's 7,800 draft concessions by the way.

I hate the Eagles. I hate ANYTHING that flies!

Easy there, big guy.

A hatred of the Eagles is irrational. We ARE flying pretty high at the moment, thanking you all very much. Not even BA Barracus could halt us at the moment. See you in the finals.

The Eagles are a CERTAINTY for the flag. A dead set MONTE.

Gee, thankin' you kindly Tony. Nice knowing you have the greatest confidence in us. There are pitfalls up ahead on the horizon though.

I can assure you that the above post contained a typo error in regards to my name. Just wishful thinking maybe ??

Peter:

Here is my favourite example of a technicality. A bloke is observed by police staggering out of a pub, getting into his car, and driving the wrong way up a one-way street. He was pulled over, breathalysed, and found to be over the limit. The magistrate found him not guilty of anything. On appeal, the judge conceded that, yes, he might be guilty of driving the wrong way, but not guilty of drink driving. Read the case, and see if you can understand M'Lud's reasoning, because it's beyond me. Something to do with the fact that the police gave him the breathalyser result in writing, then testified verbally against him at his trial.

Adelaide pensioner Gordon Howie has made a hobby of exploiting legalicalities His modus operandi is to illegally park his car in a bus zone/clearway/bicycle lane, or to drive through red lights when cops are watching. Then he appeals on technicalities all the way to the Supreme Court that no offence has been committed. So far he's got off hundreds of times, to the point where the police have stopped prosecuting him.

I'm just happy that neither Brett spotted my cunning ploy.

Just tidied up that link for you, Clem.

Gordon Howie ought to rob a bank to further test his strategy.

I can safely say that I hate the Eagles. That Hotel California shit those fuckers peddled for years. It's music for lazy people who can't be arsed to appreciate music. And the Eagles in Concert DVD seems to playing at my local chip shop in perpetuity - i have to phone in my order now just so I can avoid it.

Tony:

I wouldn't be surprised if they let him off even for a bank robbery. He's crashed into a woman's car going the opposite way while turning against a red light, and wrestled a parking officer for the keys to his car when he parked it in a bus zone. One of the Supreme Court justices even said: "It is no bad thing that such people exist". I'm only surpirised there hasn't been a Hollywood car crash action movie made about him.

Don't be too surprised about Hamilton Berger's competent. There are lawyers going around out there who make the guy with the shrink ray in Harvey Birdman look like a QC.

It was pretty tough on Melbourne, having to contend with that 45-minute break and all, but it was a pretty good game nonetheless. Is Grinter still your runner?

Yes. Grinter still is the runner. It's a pity he can't ... err ... "participate" in proceedings.

The comments to this entry are closed.