Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Get a new bike from $50 per week

Hillier is guilty

By RAMBOR 18 April 2010 24

Hillier found not guilty – THEN WHO DID IT? Hillier had the motive and the opportunity. Ana was ever so frightened of him when she was alive. Ana was a good mother and a good person and was not involved in any out of the norm practices. They do not have any other suspects and this man now walks free with a smirk on his face – a guilty smirk at that !!!!! Did anyone mention the time he cut the brake lines on her car, or punched her in the face and broke her jaw for no reason. What sort of person is he to be allowed to walk free. Why did he burn his fingers when asked to provide fingerprints. Wake up!!!!!! this man should be behind bars.

[ED – And if Stephen Wayne Hillier wants to sue us for defamation, after all those lovely emails, we look forward to him proving the truth on the balance of probability and also damage to reputation]


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
24 Responses to
Hillier is guilty
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Anna Key 9:52 pm 19 Apr 10

bd84 said :

I-filed said :

I think the consensus regarding “innocent until proven guilty” is worth defending: better a guilty man walk free, than an innocent man go to jail.

He was found guilty. The only reason he is out is because of an appeal on technical grounds and that the second judge is incompetent and can list all the evidence that points to him and still find him not guilty. We all know he was the only one with motive and opportunity, we now have yet another murderer roaming the streets as a result of a chronically sick court system.

of course, the SECOND judge is incompetent. But if the guilty verdict was re-affirmed and Hillier appealled it further but with the same eventual outcome, I guess it would be the High Court judges that were incompetent. But the fact that Hillier had a motive, and an opportunity, and probably did do it, doesn’t mean it is proven that he did it. But maybe RA can be the final pillar of the justice system. I knew the victim – he/she was hated by the accused (reasons why being irrelevant), therefore the accused is guilty. Insert RA poll of how long the sentence should be. We could save a fortune on the court system

Clown Killer 2:01 pm 19 Apr 10

The reality is that if someone gets off “on a technicality”, what that means is the prosecution has failed.

+1

It’s surprising just how often “a technicality” really means “an absence of evidence”.

astrojax 1:46 pm 19 Apr 10

todd carney prob’ly done it. [or not]

Aurelius 11:19 am 19 Apr 10

DMD – how dare you stand in the way of the self-righteous indignation of the RA lynch mob!

The reality is that if someone gets off “on a technicality”, what that means is the prosecution has failed.
Hillier fought for his freedom. The prosecution fought to convict him.
The prosecution lost.
If the lynch mob want to be angry at anyone, be angry at the incompetent people who allowed it to happen.

Deadmandrinking 8:31 am 19 Apr 10

indigoid said :

I-filed said :

I think the consensus regarding “innocent until proven guilty” is worth defending: better a guilty man walk free, than an innocent man go to jail.

+1

+2

What we need to realize is the public are never privy to the full story, or all the evidence presented. A court case is much more than the limited information given in a news article. That’s why I can safely say I don’t know whether he is or he isn’t.

cleo 12:42 am 19 Apr 10

I believe in Karma, the universe will take care of the murderer!

banco 9:25 pm 18 Apr 10

Has as much to do with the judges as the DPP or the ACT murder law. We have the most
left wing, pansy ass judges in the country. If you want to kill someone in Australia the ACT is the place to do it.

I-filed 9:10 pm 18 Apr 10

bd84 said :

I-filed said :

I think the consensus regarding “innocent until proven guilty” is worth defending: better a guilty man walk free, than an innocent man go to jail.

He was found guilty. The only reason he is out is because of an appeal on technical grounds and that the second judge is incompetent and can list all the evidence that points to him and still find him not guilty. We all know he was the only one with motive and opportunity, we now have yet another murderer roaming the streets as a result of a chronically sick court system.

Are you sure? I thought it was because there was the possibility of DNA contamination. Judges and juries are very much on notice to be cautious of DNA evidence – for good reason.
The acquittal makes me feel sick – but that’s not to say it isn’t simply what had to be done in the circumstances. Totally different from the Anu Singh FIASCO.

caf 7:51 pm 18 Apr 10

“Truth” is actually a positive defence that the defendant in a defamation case must prove, not the plaintiff disprove – as the defendant you must prove on the balance of probability that the defamatory imputations are “substantially true”.

Bosworth 6:43 pm 18 Apr 10

Hillier found not guilty – THEN WHO DID IT?

God did it

Woody Mann-Caruso 3:58 pm 18 Apr 10

Hillier found not guilty – THEN WHO DID IT?

Captain Industry.

bd84 3:57 pm 18 Apr 10

I-filed said :

I think the consensus regarding “innocent until proven guilty” is worth defending: better a guilty man walk free, than an innocent man go to jail.

He was found guilty. The only reason he is out is because of an appeal on technical grounds and that the second judge is incompetent and can list all the evidence that points to him and still find him not guilty. We all know he was the only one with motive and opportunity, we now have yet another murderer roaming the streets as a result of a chronically sick court system.

steveu 3:36 pm 18 Apr 10

Again, getting a murder conviction in the ACT seems to be a very hard thing to do. I would love to know how many people in the last 20 years have been successfuly charged so in the ACT.
I agree with I-filed though.

indigoid 3:29 pm 18 Apr 10

I-filed said :

I think the consensus regarding “innocent until proven guilty” is worth defending: better a guilty man walk free, than an innocent man go to jail.

+1

SkipDaRoo 2:22 pm 18 Apr 10

Found the articles to read about 4 articles down.
Thanks

SkipDaRoo 2:19 pm 18 Apr 10

Would like some links to read, the OP did not come across as objective and I have no idea what they are referring to, I can guess of course.

Also Ed comment, defamation is defamation, you do not get to add conditions to it, the court room was the place for that information to be obtained, and apparently a jury of his peers or one of our dodgy magistrates were not convinced (again no links).

LlamaFrog 1:28 pm 18 Apr 10

brave stand.

Anna Key 1:28 pm 18 Apr 10

I don’t think being acquitted means he didn’t do it, just that it wasn’t proven. The court didn’t say he didn’t do it either. Or maybe he employed better hitmen than Conway or the same defence team as Anu Singh.

Wraith 1:07 pm 18 Apr 10

I-filed said :

I think the consensus regarding “innocent until proven guilty” is worth defending: better a guilty man walk free, than an innocent man go to jail.

Not sure this is the point the OP is trying to make.

Spideydog 1:07 pm 18 Apr 10

Guilty men don’t even go to jail these days ……..

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site