MichaelCCFC
New Member
Don't know if I'm following things properly but seemed to be suggestions yesterday that the JR verdict is not that important and it's what is said in court that will really matter. Simon Gilbert posted that "I'd be very wary about accepting everything said in court as fact. Evidence is always presented by those with an agenda and often not presented in its entirety or with the relevant context. That's the nature of court hearings. That's also why there's a judge!"
So is this (1) a clever double bluff to make it sound like sisu think they'll lose and when they win it will seem even more important or (2) is there really a belief that the judge's verdict on what has been proven is not that important and it is stuff said in court presented with an agenda, out of context, not in its entirety etc etc that is what will matter? In any court case the judge's verdict is the absolute most critical thing - the whole point of having courts is so a verdict/decision is reached! So I'd reject option 2 and my money's on option 1. If I've got the wrong end of the stick please explain!
So is this (1) a clever double bluff to make it sound like sisu think they'll lose and when they win it will seem even more important or (2) is there really a belief that the judge's verdict on what has been proven is not that important and it is stuff said in court presented with an agenda, out of context, not in its entirety etc etc that is what will matter? In any court case the judge's verdict is the absolute most critical thing - the whole point of having courts is so a verdict/decision is reached! So I'd reject option 2 and my money's on option 1. If I've got the wrong end of the stick please explain!