Hookes Case - NOT GUILTY!!

[Joel]

Just reported on Ch10 news.

[Johnson#26]

Unbelieveable. He got nothing. Who else killed Hooksey?

Remember this thread?:

http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?t=15137

[GO RUPERT 10]

what a load of crap

i guess now bouncers can do what they like and go around and bash patrons up

[Joel]

Apparently they said it was in self defence.

[Johnson#26]

So I can bash and ultimatly kill someone but say that I was only defending myself and get off? Not right, IMO.

[London Dave]

[David]

yeah I think its probably the correct decision, I didn't follow the case closely but it sounded like the bouncer might have been innocent, and I guess the judge thought so too.... I was hoping that members of the jury wouldnt be biased because Hookes was a celebrity.

[Johnson#26]

Going on what I've heard from different reports...?

[Joel]

Have to agree with the sentiment LD.

We generally have only some idea of what was said in court. Most reports seem to indicate that Hookes was being aggressive, and the bouncer threw a punch in self defense. A number of witnesses also said this was the case.

In the end, it would have been very hard to prove beyond all doubt (which is necessary in criminal law) that the bouncer was guilty.

[David]

well OK all I've heard was that Hookes started a fight, bouncer tried to protect himself, and stop the fight, hit Hookes, who fell and smacked his head on the ground. Yeah I guess there were other versions of events, but that was the one reported in the newspaper, and it seems the one the judge considered most valid.

[Joel]

[Eunos]

[David]

yeah I had actually forgotten that, good point Eunos. It may well have simply been self-defence

[HAL]

I've lost the context, David from Canberra. Are we still on Mike's? Thats okay I forget things all the time. Then again, it may not.

[Cam]

Last time I checked bouncers worked in clubs, not across the road next to people's cars. Unless he was a valet as well...