by shoe boy » Wed Dec 16, 2015 7:13 am
by tipper » Wed Dec 16, 2015 7:44 am
Mr Beefy wrote:Grahaml wrote:Mr Beefy wrote:Grahaml wrote:Seems the search term has been released. Reading the paper today it's a weird thing but the incriminating part is the use of the word "tiny". Have to say, you'd have a hard time convinving me that's how you search specifically for child porn as opposed to slim or short porn. If (and that's obviously a big if) that is the entire basis of this case then given he's lost his job and the publicity surrounding this is so enormous, I'm inclined to think his request to not have a conviction recorded had merit.
No doubt at all anyone who goes out looking for child porn deserves to suffer for the rest of their lives. But I just can't bring myself to say for sure that there was anything in this that shows an intent to break the law or even negligence that he should have known.
"tiny" is only in one of the search terms he used, some of the others seemed quite specific to me
That was the only one I saw. The article gave the impression that was the term they took issue with. Unless I missed a chunk. News limited journalists aren't exactly the most readable writers I've come across.
http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/SentencingRemarks/Pages/lightbox.aspx?IsDlg=1&Filter=4301
by Booney » Wed Dec 16, 2015 10:41 am
Jimmy_041 wrote:Here's the 94 page full judgement: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sign ... C/2015/166
by Jimmy_041 » Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:22 am
Booney wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Here's the 94 page full judgement: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sign ... C/2015/166
I've trawled through much of this, I'm fascinated by "court talk" and the manner in which verdicts, judgements and the like are articulated.
Looking at the search terms used, looking at the users penchant for the "art form" it's almost impossible to believe the defence team had any case to state it was Google algorithm that led to Finnigan being exposed to the material.
Again, one must ask, why did this take 4 years?
by Jimmy_041 » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:34 pm
Booney wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Here's the 94 page full judgement: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sign ... C/2015/166
I've trawled through much of this, I'm fascinated by "court talk" and the manner in which verdicts, judgements and the like are articulated.
Looking at the search terms used, looking at the users penchant for the "art form" it's almost impossible to believe the defence team had any case to state it was Google algorithm that led to Finnigan being exposed to the material.
Again, one must ask, why did this take 4 years?
by The Big Shrek » Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:10 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:Booney wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Here's the 94 page full judgement: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sign ... C/2015/166
I've trawled through much of this, I'm fascinated by "court talk" and the manner in which verdicts, judgements and the like are articulated.
Looking at the search terms used, looking at the users penchant for the "art form" it's almost impossible to believe the defence team had any case to state it was Google algorithm that led to Finnigan being exposed to the material.
Again, one must ask, why did this take 4 years?
I'm 3/4 way through it
Quite astonishing that the first 29 pages are about interpretation of the Laws
It took so long because they originally had 6-7 charges which got brought down to 2 and they kept going back to the Supreme Court (that is referenced in the judgement). https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#ar ... x&t=browse
Note the final District Court one was No 3. Here are the other 2:
http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/Judgments/L ... C%2034.pdf
http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/Judgments/L ... C%2055.pdf
by Jimmy_041 » Tue Dec 22, 2015 12:34 pm
The Big Shrek wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Booney wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Here's the 94 page full judgement: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sign ... C/2015/166
I've trawled through much of this, I'm fascinated by "court talk" and the manner in which verdicts, judgements and the like are articulated.
Looking at the search terms used, looking at the users penchant for the "art form" it's almost impossible to believe the defence team had any case to state it was Google algorithm that led to Finnigan being exposed to the material.
Again, one must ask, why did this take 4 years?
I'm 3/4 way through it
Quite astonishing that the first 29 pages are about interpretation of the Laws
It took so long because they originally had 6-7 charges which got brought down to 2 and they kept going back to the Supreme Court (that is referenced in the judgement). https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#ar ... x&t=browse
Note the final District Court one was No 3. Here are the other 2:
http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/Judgments/L ... C%2034.pdf
http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/Judgments/L ... C%2055.pdf
I agree it is ridiculous that it took 4 years. I would have got him acquitted in 6 months flat.
by stan » Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 am
by Dogwatcher » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:09 pm
by mighty_tiger_79 » Tue Jan 12, 2016 1:43 pm
by Jimmy_041 » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:13 pm
by Dogwatcher » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:18 pm
by Magellan » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:22 pm
by Booney » Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:29 pm
by Booney » Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:43 am
by Jimmy_041 » Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:04 pm
Booney wrote:Gago steps down.
by Chuck Wepner » Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:41 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:Booney wrote:Gago steps down.
The epitome of everything wrong with the labor party's selection of ministers process
by Magellan » Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:35 am
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:RIP John bannon
by stan » Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:35 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:Booney wrote:Gago steps down.
The epitome of everything wrong with the labor party's selection of ministers process
by Dogwatcher » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:12 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |