Procter took 'Australia's word for it'

[Left_Hander]

What I don't understand is if Harbhajan is banned for three test matches what benefit is it to Australia? The crime happened against Australia and they won't benefit from Harbhajan not playing in those last two tests.

 

[manee]

What I don't understand is if Harbhajan is banned for three test matches what benefit is it to Australia? The crime happened against Australia and they won't benefit from Harbhajan not playing in those last two tests.

It is not supposed to benefit Australia, it is meant to punish Harbhajan for his alledged crime.

I have lost respect for the decision after hearing that there is no evidence. You cannot convict with no evidence. However, without a lawyer, it is possible that Harbhajan's defense was so shabby that it was hard to believe. I have heard reports stating that Harbhajan's defense was poorly organised.

 

[.::Stevo::.]

It is not supposed to benefit Australia, it is meant to punish Harbhajan for his alledged crime.

I have lost respect for the decision after hearing that there is no evidence. You cannot convict with no evidence. However, without a lawyer, it is possible that Harbhajan's defense was so shabby that it was hard to believe. I have heard reports stating that Harbhajan's defense was poorly organised.

But there are witnesses, that my friend is evidence no matter what country you from. Like Sureshot said, why do courts bother having people testify?

 

[Cricketman]

But there are witnesses, that my friend is evidence no matter what country you from. Like Sureshot said, why do courts bother having people testify?

Okay.
Person A is accused of commiting a crime.
Person B (who was at the scene of the crime) says he did commit the crime.
Person C (Who was there as well) Says he did not.

B does not like A.
C likes B.

Is this enough evidence to say that A did the crime?

 

[Hooper]

Why? For using the evidence available to him?

Im agreeing, but weren't you one of the ones complaining about the lack of evidence in the first place? And now just "taking his word" is good enough.

 

[Sureshot]

It's a different type of evidence. I was saying there was a lack of technical evidence, a recording of the 'abuse', etc, that is correct. I do believe that in a court room they differentiate between evidence (for instance a DNA match) and the evidence of a witness. I think they even call them different types of evidence.

I never said that the witnesses evidence was good enough, I just questioned why Proctor should be 'dead meat' for using the evidence available to him.

 

[smssia0112]

It's unlawful. That's all I can say.
Evidence is not 'a person's word for it'.

I still fail to see why he would call him a monkey. My money is on the "teri maa ki..." (Yo MAMA-translation )

I certainly hope that your money is locked safely away where you can't touch it or you may find yourself the victim of a lot of scams.

Okay.
Person A is accused of commiting a crime.
Person B (who was at the scene of the crime) says he did commit the crime.
Person C (Who was there as well) Says he did not.

B does not like A.
C likes B.

Is this enough evidence to say that A did the crime?

Maybe not if you put it that way, but that's not even the whole story that we know. How about this:

Symonds gives the story, and says that Harbhajan called him a monkey.

Harbhajan gives the story, and says that he is 100% innocent.

Tendulkar says he didn't say it, other Aussies say he did.

Procter goes away with the evidence, and likely comes up with the following:

An altercation was started when Symonds defended Lee, perhaps overreacting, and as heated words were exchanged between Symonds and Harbhajan, the latter called Symonds a monkey.

He takes into account the fact that there is already tension over this word, and that Harbhajan has expressed a dislike for Symonds and the Australians.

He also takes into account that Harbhajan has no defence, and he does not believe that Symonds is making it up after hearing both testify. Part of a court trial is hearing the evidence presented. If Symonds' testimony seemed truthful, and Harbhajan's did not, then that presents further reason to find Symonds guilty.

Furthermore, the fact that Tendulkar says that he did not is not reasonable proof, as Tendulkar may simply not have heard it. On the other hand, if other Australians did say that they heard it, then that is a complaining victim and eyewitnesses, which is more than enough to find guilt. There is no definitive evidence for us to say whether any of them would have been able to hear it, but if they did, then the Aussie side comes off as more convincing as Tendulkar may simply not have heard monkey.

As for the teri maa ki defence, it was not presented at trial (of course a lawyer is going to influence it, but if it is truthful then Harbhajan would have said something rather than 'I just didn't do it' being his defence). It is absolutely a desperate defence and stinks of a last minute thought.

So yes, if I was presented with this evidence, I believe that it's fair to find Harbhajan guilty.

 

[Gilly Fan]

It's unlawful. That's all I can say.
Evidence is not 'a person's word for it'.

I still fail to see why he would call him a monkey. My money is on the "teri maa ki..." (Yo MAMA-translation )

But why would someone, who is talking english face to face with someone, go ahead and say something in a different language?

 

[manee]

But why would someone, who is talking english face to face with someone, go ahead and say something in a different language?

I don't know, but it happens quite often. Andre Nel often sledges in Afrikaans.

 

[SciD]

I don't know, but it happens quite often. Andre Nel often sledges in Afrikaans.

Sreesanth praises batsmen for there shots in Malyaleese and they think hes swearing at them.

 

[Animator!]

I don't know, but it happens quite often. Andre Nel often sledges in Afrikaans.

It's intimidaition, if you've ever been in a room with people speaking a different language to you and one you cannot understand it really does make you feel nervy.

 

[smssia0112]

I can see why he would do it, I just don't see any chance that he actually did.

 

[manee]

It's intimidaition, if you've ever been in a room with people speaking a different language to you and one you cannot understand it really does make you feel nervy.

Yep, happens in all those weddings I am forced to go to.

 

[ivanvdm15]

if there's no proper evidence you can't just go off and band someone , and sertainly not just take one sides word and not the other.....

I don't know, but it happens quite often. Andre Nel often sledges in Afrikaans.

Never heard that before , but i ofter year AB de Villiers behind the stumps speaking Afrikaans but its not offensive its just something like come on boys , or something like that.... ( when he's keeping )

 

[Left_Hander]

It is not supposed to benefit Australia, it is meant to punish Harbhajan for his alledged crime.

Let's say in rugby league Team A is playing Team B. Team A is really good and a player from Team B knocks out a player from Team A. The Team B player gets put on report and sent to the judiciary and gets 4 weeks for the bad tackle, while the Team A player is out for 6 weeks becasue of a bad injury.

Fair? I think not.