Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor

Another turn of the polling screw against the Coalition, as formerly uncommitted respondents increasingly offer a negative view of the Prime Minister.

The fortnightly Essential poll — now appearing in Newspoll off weeks, praise be — follows Newspoll in recording Labor’s lead at 54-46, out from 53-47. Monthly personal ratings are better for Scott Morrison than Newspoll in that he remains in net positive territory, but the formerly undecided are breaking heavily against him, with his approval down two to 41% and disapproval up nine to 37%. Bill Shorten maintains his recent improving form, up five on approval to 38% and down one on disapproval to 44% – his second best result from the pollster in the past two years. However, the shift on preferred prime minister is relatively modest, with Morrison’s lead down from 42-27 to 41-29.

Other findings: 44% support Australia becoming a republic in principle, down four since May, with 32% opposed; 61% have a favourable view of Queen Elizabeth, 68% of Prince William, 70% of Prince Harry but only 33% of Prince Charles. The Guardian report is here; the full report from Essential Research, including primary votes, will be with us later today. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1028.

UPDATE: Full report from Essential Research here, and the primary vote shifts are on the high end from what you’d expect out of a one-point shift on two-party preferred: the Coalition is down two to 36%, and Labor up two to 39%, the Greens are steady on 10% and One Nation are down one to 6%.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,958 comments on “Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor”

Comments Page 31 of 40
1 … 30 31 32 … 40

  1. Says the poster who claims he has been as drunk as Foley claimed (i.e., so drunk as to not actually remember what they did) but is nevertheless convinced they never sexually assaulted anyone.
    _____________________
    Oh so Foley is claiming not to remember the assault. How convenient.

  3. Bushfire Bill @ #1343 Thursday, November 8th, 2018 – 11:22 am

    Wendy Touhy in the SMH again misses the point.

    Her line is to accept in full both the story and claimed motivations of Eryn Norvill, and to work from there.

    Once Eryn Norvill’s story is accepted as true, and her interpretations of Geoffrey Rush’s intentions are accepted as correct then Rush bevonis a workplace sexual harasser, using his high position in the Australian theatrical hierarchy (itself also condemned as complicit) to prey upon innocent young females for the ourpises of sexual gratification.

    The possibility that Norvill’s story may NOT be true or that, if superficially true, her interpretation may not be accurate, does not enter Touhy’s head. The ramifications of this go far.

    * At best, Rush has no idea of how to behave in a modern workplace. At worst he is a serial sexual harasser.

    * Norvill’s early reluctance to make a formal complaint now becomes the terrified act of a powerless young girl afraid of bring crushed by the cruel industry in which she has chosen to work. A minor incident worth a mention over drinks had now become a ritual humiliation that has devastated the young actress, and condemned an entire industry. Exaggerated? Touhy refuses to even consider exaggeration as a possibility.

    * Implicit in the last point is that the entire industry itself is corrupt, and condones and covers up sexual bastardization in the workpkace.

    * With Touhy being astonished that anyone could possibly doubt Norvill’s word, the fact that the judge is having trouble accepting it shows that the legal system itself is also condoning Rush’s behaviour.

    For Norvill to be right, the entire legal and theatrical industries have to be wrong, and all the witnesses who supported Rush’s story, including eye witnesses of high repute, are liars.

    For her part Norvill has ONE corroborative witness, whose story is confused as to details, and who admits his memory needed jogging before he was able to recall the incident during rehearsal. Even then his story was different to Norvill’s in an important detail, and he can only remember a joke by Rush, not collective collusion in ritual sexual humiliation.

    Even Norvill herself (supposedly after all this harassment and humiliation had taken place) told the Daily Telegraph that one of Rush’s most likeable features was his sense of humour, his playfulness. This contradictory opinion is explained away as a white lie, for the good of the production, the colleagues, the theatre and the industry which she now condemns, for the same reasons she once praised them.

    No wonder the judge is “grappling” with Norvill’s story.

    Touhy states that Norvill did not want to tell it. Touhy (as others have done) implies that Norvill had to be dragged kicking and screaming into court by the Daily Telegraph, reluctant to the end. Yet she was a DEFENCE witness, not a hostile witness. She went to court in aid of the Tele’s case, not in opposition to it. As a result, Norvill’s publicly stated appreciation of Rush’s sense of humour and of his skill as an actor, mentor and friend, and her mild, informal complaint to a friend in STC admin turned into the toil and trouble of ritual humiliation at the hands of an entire industry in general and the perverted, geriatric gropings of one of it most respected stars in particular.

    Of course it might all be true, but unlike Touhy, I find it quite easy to believe that the judge is having trouble accepting it.

    Perhaps, if the Tele had bothered to check the story in the first place, they might not have printed it at all.

    https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/why-is-it-ej-norvill-s-honesty-that-appears-to-be-on-trial-20181107-p50el8.html

    BB,

    The problems I find with most articles and commentary on this defamation case is the lack of understanding as to the nature of the proceedings and what is to be determined in them and how. My rough guide (although this is not my field of law and I am not across the matters pleaded in any claim or defence) is as follows:

    1. Mr Rush has sued News (the publisher of the Tele) and the journo alleging defamation said to arise from certain alleged defamatory imputations in a publication(s) and claiming damages for injury to his reputation. I understand that one of a number of the defamatory imputations pleaded as conveyed by the publications(s) is that he was a sexual pervert or predator.

    2. News and the journo have raised defences including truth (and possibly contextual truth).

    3. This is a civil trial and not a criminal trial. Hence, proof of any matter will be determined on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities (ie to the reasonable satisfaction of the court or tribunal) rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, there is no point in talking of ‘guilt’ or ‘innocence’ etc.

    4. This is not a sexual harassment claim (or other workplace claim) brought by Ms Norvill against her employer or Mr Rush. She is not a party although she is the crucial witness for the defendants.

    5. Having received or heard the evidence and heard the submissions of the parties, the Judge will probably determine the case, broadly speaking, in the following order.

    6. First, what, if any, of the plaintiff’s alleged defamatory imputations are conveyed by the defendants’ publication(s)?

    7. Second, which, if any, of the defendants’ defences have been established to the defamatory imputations found to have been conveyed by the publication(s)?

    8. Finally, for any of the defamatory imputations that remain (ie where defences have not been established), what loss or damage has been suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendants’ defamation of him?

    9. The onus of proving the defamatory imputations and damages will always rest on the plaintiff. The onus of proving the defences will always rest on the defendants.

    10. While that standard of proof always remains on the balance of probabilities, the rule in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (as set out by Dixon J) states “The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding, are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal.” In cases such as this, Justice Dixon maintained that that the standard of proof should not be satisfied by “inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect references.”

    11. Thus, in deciding whether the defendants have proved the truth of the defamatory imputation to the reasonable satisfaction of the Court, the nature of the defamatory imputation and seriousness of the allegation will affect the determination of that issue. One would assume that the Court will be guided by the rule in Briginshaw’s case if asked to find the truth of say the defamatory imputation that Mr Rush was a sexual pervert or predator.

    12. Of course, it may be possible for the court to determine the case (or part of the case) without even finding one way or the other on the veracity or accuracy of Ms Norvill’s evidence. For example, it may be able to simply find the defence of truth not proved if Ms Norvill’s evidence, even taken at its highest, could not establish a defence of truth.

    13. Everyone (including me) should just relax and await the judgment of the Court. Most of the crap published about the ongoing trial is simply that, crap.

    I apologise to all and sundry, including William, for the length and boorishness of this post. Some or many of you will know more than me on this topic but I have been growing increasingly infuriated at the crap reporting and commentary on this case.

    For me, the worst aspects of this case are as follows:

    1. Ms Norvill was entitled to make the complaint she did and to request that it be kept private.

    2. Mr Rush, who apparently did not even learn of the complaint until the publication(s) by the defendants, was also entitled to his privacy.

    3. The defendants apparently published without even speaking to Ms Norvill first. They showed no respect or regard for her right to privacy or Mr Rush’s right to privacy. Why? There is no public interest issue in this publication(s). No doubt their only reason was that they wanted to sell more copies.

    4. Whatever the result of the case, one or both of Ms Norvill and Mr Rush will have their reputations trashed in circumstances where their request or right to privacy has been trampled over by the defendants. I discount any harm to the defendants’ reputations because I have already put them at ‘ankles’ status (pardon the sexism). They can’t go any lower.

    5. It says a lot about the titillation and celebrity elements of this case (and our society) that none of the reporting or commentary seems to focus on the defendants conduct in publishing without any regard for the privacy of Ms Norvill or Mr Rush or without apparently first trying to establish precisely what Ms Norvill’s complaint is or was, let alone its truth.

  4. lizzie @ #1390 Thursday, November 8th, 2018 – 11:22 am

    C@t

    And it will be the Tele’s perennial search for the humiliating piss-take pun to put on the front page that will be their ultimate undoing.

    The Judge was hinting at that, I think.

    We have noticed how often the headlines in many papers do not match the story, but are written just for attention/clickbait.

    This could be a real problem for the Tele. Was the fully story subscriber only? If so, it makes a potentially libelous statement out loud for the public to see but restricts its “fair and balanced” report to a limited section of the public under conditions. Very shakey ground IMHO.

  5. TPOF how does that change the fact that Foley has been caught out as a liar and a sexual harasser? You miss the point.

    Labor can go nuts for all I care. And if they catch out any lib liar and/or sexual harasser, then I’ll call them out as well – along with anyone who tries to apologise for their indiscretions.

  6. sustainable future @ #1498 Thursday, November 8th, 2018 – 2:22 pm

    I remember when Boerwar posts were insightful and fresh.

    this infantile crusade against the greens is ‘boering’ and just shows how the right wing of the labor party still hates the left more than they hate the libs because their agenda is essentially the same. The main difference is that labor right will protect the institution of unions and union power brokers as they more gently/slowly impose thatcherite IR and privatisation laws. Howard claims that Keating got through more ‘reforms’ (ie neo-classical Chicago-school economics) than he ever could have as a lib treasurer. If you want to know why wages and conditions and union memberships are falling and inequality is growing, look to Keating and the labor right. Thank Dog we have the greens to keep labor to the left and challenge the Keating-Howard neo-classical treasury orthodoxy – THAT is the greens main achievement of the past 30 years.

    You make some interesting points.

  7. by the ugliest, meanest and most reprehensible poster here for ages
    ____________________________________
    Wow, I guess I’m Leroy Brown!:

    Well the South side of Chicago
    Is the baddest part of town
    And if you go down there
    You better just beware
    Of a man named Leroy Brown
    Now Leroy more than trouble
    You see he stand ’bout six foot four
    All the downtown ladies call him “Treetop Lover”
    All the men just call him “Sir”
    And it’s bad, bad Leroy Brown
    The baddest man in the whole damned town
    Badder than old King Kong
    And meaner than a junkyard dog

  8. sustainable future: “this infantile crusade against the greens is ‘boering’ ”

    I agree. Particularly frustrating given that BW is capable of making some of the most insightful arguments when he is not being partisan.

    It is my honest belief that the best thing for this country would be a labor government that is dependant on a Green BOP vote to get their legislation through. *ducks for cover*

  10. Just as well NSW has fixed four year terms. Otherwise Gladys would have called the election tomorrow or over the weekend.
    Now the ALP will have five months to get their new Leader known to voters – whoever he or she is.

  11. Darc @ 2.25

    1. Ms Norvill was entitled to make the complaint she did and to request that it be kept private.

    2. Mr Rush, who apparently did not even learn of the complaint until the publication(s) by the defendants, was also entitled to his privacy.

    3. The defendants apparently published without even speaking to Ms Norvill first. They showed no respect or regard for her right to privacy or Mr Rush’s right to privacy. Why? There is no public interest issue in this publication(s). No doubt their only reason was that they wanted to sell more copies.

    4. Whatever the result of the case, one or both of Ms Norvill and Mr Rush will have their reputations trashed in circumstances where their request or right to privacy has been trampled over by the defendants. I discount any harm to the defendants’ reputations because I have already put them at ‘ankles’ status (pardon the sexism). They can’t go any lower.

    5. It says a lot about the titillation and celebrity elements of this case (and our society) that none of the reporting or commentary seems to focus on the defendants conduct in publishing without any regard for the privacy of Ms Norvill or Mr Rush or without apparently first trying to establish precisely what Ms Norvill’s complaint is or was, let alone its truth.

    _______________________________

    Very nice summary pointing to the true villain in this case.

  14. Darc @ #1532 Thursday, November 8th, 2018 – 2:25 pm

    Bushfire Bill @ #1343 Thursday, November 8th, 2018 – 11:22 am

    The problems I find with most articles and commentary on this defamation case is the lack of understanding as to the nature of the proceedings and what is to be determined in them and how. My rough guide (although this is not my field of law and I am not across the matters pleaded in any claim or defence) is as follows:

    1. Mr Rush has sued News (the publisher of the Tele) and the journo alleging defamation said to arise from certain alleged defamatory imputations in a publication(s) and claiming damages for injury to his reputation. I understand that one of a number of the defamatory imputations pleaded as conveyed by the publications(s) is that he was a sexual pervert or predator.
    …
    I apologise to all and sundry, including William, for the length and boorishness of this post. Some or many of you will know more than me on this topic but I have been growing increasingly infuriated at the crap reporting and commentary on this case.

    For me, the worst aspects of this case are as follows:

    1. Ms Norvill was entitled to make the complaint she did and to request that it be kept private.

    2. Mr Rush, who apparently did not even learn of the complaint until the publication(s) by the defendants, was also entitled to his privacy.

    3. The defendants apparently published without even speaking to Ms Norvill first. They showed no respect or regard for her right to privacy or Mr Rush’s right to privacy. Why? There is no public interest issue in this publication(s). No doubt their only reason was that they wanted to sell more copies.

    4. Whatever the result of the case, one or both of Ms Norvill and Mr Rush will have their reputations trashed in circumstances where their request or right to privacy has been trampled over by the defendants. I discount any harm to the defendants’ reputations because I have already put them at ‘ankles’ status (pardon the sexism). They can’t go any lower.

    5. It says a lot about the titillation and celebrity elements of this case (and our society) that none of the reporting or commentary seems to focus on the defendants conduct in publishing without any regard for the privacy of Ms Norvill or Mr Rush or without apparently first trying to establish precisely what Ms Norvill’s complaint is or was, let alone its truth.

    Thank you Darc. You have shone a brighter light of wisdom and experience on this topic than a few other PB denizens.

  15. Can one of our NSW Labor right bludgers rule out any collusion with the Liberals to air this in parliament in order to remove Foley …?

  16. Does Jody McKay have much support in the party rooms? If not, she would be placed in a kind of “Malcolm’s Corner” and made ridiculous.

  17. looks like it’s Daley. Unadventurous, but unsurprising.

    Catalina Florez
    ‏
    Verified account

    @florezcata
    1h1 hour ago
    More
    Labor source tells me leadership contenders Jodi McKay and Ryan Park have fallen in behind Michael Daley and he’s overwhelmingly got the numbers to take over from Luke Foley #nswpol @10NewsFirstSyd

  19. “Just as well NSW has fixed four year terms. Otherwise Gladys would have called the election tomorrow or over the weekend.”

    I am wondering if this will affect Fed election timing??

    Till now the conventional wisdom seems to have been that a Federal election would be after the NSW State one. If Foley resigns it has to be at least somewhat to the advantage of the NSW Libs. Think #leadersh@t instability and the whole same same bullshit.

    The Libs federally would want to exploit any state issues they can. They are desperate.

    Go for an earlier fed election while NSW ALP bedding in a new leader, or wait and see if the NSW Libs can exploit that, do better than expected, and go to a fed election off the back of that??

  22. And whilst I have no sympathy for the mess Foley has gotten himself into without anyone else’s help I do hope he is being cared for. He needs to pay a heavy price, but it’s not a capital offence either. We don’t want this ending up with a suicide attempt a la Brogden.

    I’m assuming the ABC and her friends are providing adequate support to Ms Raper in what is clearly a difficult time for her.

  23. Don’t know anything about the possible labor replacements. But I don’t see this affecting labor’s election chances much. Plenty of chance to display a new leader (new publicity). No suggestion there was a factional brawl, etc etc. If Gladys is going down, she’s going down.

  24. And in case anybody has forgotten about how it ended up for Leroy Brown.

    Well Friday bout a week ago
    Leroy shootin’ dice
    And at the edge of the bar
    Sat a girl named Doris
    And ooh that girl looked nice
    Well he cast his eyes upon her
    And the trouble soon began
    Leroy Brown learned a lesson
    ‘Bout messin’ with the wife of a jealous man

    Well the two men took to fightin’
    And when they pulled them from the floor
    Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
    With a couple of pieces gone

  26. Oh God yes, *PLEASE* go early Morrisson.

    Actually it would be a stupid move IMO. Even if state labor issues have any effect on federal elections – by the time of the election labor’s new leader would be in place and probably enjoying a honeymoon period – with the Foley shenanigans well behind us all.

  27. ratsak @ #1521 Thursday, November 8th, 2018 – 2:55 pm

    And whilst I have no sympathy for the mess Foley has gotten himself into without anyone else’s help I do hope he is being cared for. He needs to pay a heavy price, but it’s not a capital offence either. We don’t want this ending up with a suicide attempt a la Brogden.

    I’m assuming the ABC and her friends are providing adequate support to Ms Raper in what is clearly a difficult time for her.

    Both good points.

  28. Rossmcg
    says:
    Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 2:57 pm
    And in case anybody has forgotten about how it ended up for Leroy Brown.
    ________________________
    It’s hard to stay at the top of the street fighting game. Always new up and comers.

  29. And whilst I have no sympathy for the mess Foley has gotten himself into without anyone else’s help I do hope he is being cared for.
    ___________________________
    Oh please. If it was my daughter who was that reporter I’d be taking good care of him.

  30. “Oh God yes, *PLEASE* go early Morrisson.”

    If its a bad idea, you can bet the Liberal brains trust will be thinking about it. 🙂

    “Always new up and comers.”

    Or in your case…………….has been, never were, lightweights.

  32. It’s ridiculous to say that this case is not about the truth or otherwise of Norvill’s story.

    The judge certainly seems to think it is relevant, if not central to the defence. Without Norvill’s “non-complaint” complaint there would have been no Telegraph story. Without the story, no defamation case.

    So, to rectify the lack of initial contact with Norvill, the Tele digs her up, works on her, and finally convinces her to act as a witness for their case. Lo and behold, the punt they took publishing on the rumour of a rumour turns out to be rolled gold true! Beautiful young actress set upon by dirty old man, the old hags and witches who work with him, and the entire Australian theatrical industry. They’re ALL in on it!

    But if her story is not true, or if her malign interpretation of Rush’s antics turns out to be a miscasting of his motives (and that of the rest of those she condemned), then not bothering to check her story becomes doubly damning for the Tele.

    Remember, she had already told the Tele – at a very relevant time – that Rush was one of the professional and personal lights of her life. You’d think the about face would have given the Tele some pause for thought.

  33. max

    Who is defending Foley’s actions?
    ————-
    Barney: I’m not suggesting anyone is.

    I’m suggesting that those faithful PB Soldiers of ALPaeda who were recently damning the “misogynist Greens” based on incidents of sexual harassment in the Greens Party should likewise accuse the ALP of being misogynist, based on allegations about Foley’s conduct. Oh yeah, there was Emma Husar too, wasn’t there.

    Personally, I’d think that describing the ALP and its supporters as “misogynist”based on the allegations, or even actual misconduct by Foley or other individuals, would be vacuously stupid. But then again, I’m not a tribal warrior who believes that my mostly preferred political party is always correct, and that other political parties and their supporters are always wrong,

  35. nath @ #1529 Thursday, November 8th, 2018 – 11:04 am

    And whilst I have no sympathy for the mess Foley has gotten himself into without anyone else’s help I do hope he is being cared for.
    ___________________________
    Oh please. If it was my daughter who was that reporter I’d be taking good care of him.

    Vigilantism, yes that’s the appropriate response.

    And you accuse others of holding disgusting opinions!

  38. sustainable future
    Oh, OK. I am sick of trying to help the Greens.
    You make up the huge list of Greens major social, political and economic achievements.
    You could try organizing it by decade, if you like.

  39. steve davis
    says:
    Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 3:12 pm
    So where does that leave Joyce and the allegations made by his victim?
    _________________________________
    Very good point. Foley was unlucky that there was a witness I suppose. Otherwise he could have just continued to deny deny deny.

  41. Eryn Norvill has no incentive to lie. She didn’t want to bring a formal complaint. After the theatrical production had finished she had an informal confidential word with a colleague in the hope that the Sydney Theatre Company could reduce the risk of similar harassment occurring in the future.

    The Daily Telgraph brought the matter into the open. This was unfair to both Eryn Norvill and Geoffrey Rush.

    Whoever tipped of the Daily Telegraph was extremely disrespectful and inconsiderate – they expressly overrode Eryn Norvill’s request for confidentiality and they set in motion events that hurt both Eryn Norvill and Geoffrey Rush.

  42. So will Foley resign before he’s told to resign?

    In regards to the Rush case, IANAL, and I haven’t been following the case closely, but isn’t it possible for the judge to find Ms Norvill creditable and even accept her evidence, but still find for Mr Rush? Can the judge decide that the accusations made in the paper and headline go well beyond the evidence presented by Ms Norvill (i.e. he likely behaved inappropriately but that didn’t amount to being a sexual pervert or predator)?

  44. I would like to put in a good word for Ms Raper. That is an excellent letter, IMO and reflects excellent sense given that the politicians have behaved very badly indeed.
    I would also like to put in a good word for ABC management in this matter.
    It is clear that they have first, last and foremost, looked after the best interests of their staff member.

  45. BUSTED: Trump’s new acting Attorney General’s linked to secretive anti-Dem group

    Newly-installed acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker lead a mysterious right-wing organization The Daily Beast reported Wednesday.

    Whitaker worked as executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), which defended Attorney General Jeff Sessions for telling the United States Senate mistruths about meetings with Russians during confirmation hearings.

    FACT was an “organization which served primarily to level ethics complaints against Democrats.”

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/busted-trumps-new-acting-attorney-generals-linked-secretive-anti-dem-group/

    Full Article :

    Jeff Sessions’ Replacement, Matthew Whitaker, Led Secretive Anti-Dem Group

    Acting AG Matthew Whitaker ‘is on record as being more interested in propping up Trump than in upholding the rule of law,’ one Justice Department lawyer says.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeff-sessions-replacement-matthew-whitaker-led-secretive-anti-dem-group

  46. Not sure if that has been covered much, but it deserves some attention.

    Re. the Scomo bus in Queensland:
    – turns out his great “meet and listen to the Queensland voters” expedition consisted (as far as I can tell) entirely of invitation-only events, which were in fact nothing more than liberal fundraising events.

    Absolute farce.

  48. ‘Impeachment is real now’: Lawrence O’Donnell reveals how everything changed in the last 24 hours

    “Today, Trump is clinging to the wreckage of the Trump government and panicking,” O’Donnell observed. “The Trump government has included the White House and both houses of Congress and now the Trump government is broken, very broken, because the Democrats have the House of Representatives.”

    “And if Donald Trump’s newly installed political hack of an acting attorney general takes action against special prosecutor Robert Mueller, the Democratic House of Representatives will bring Robert Mueller to testify publicly about exactly how the acting attorney general has interfered with his investigation,” he explained.

    “Impeachment is real now,” he concluded. “And so the president’s panicked firing of his attorney general today has moved Donald Trump one step closer to impeachment and the new Trump acting Attorney General Matthew Whittaker will also be investigated by the Democratic House for obstruction of justice if he interferes with the Mueller investigation in any way.”

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/impeachment-real-now-lawrence-odonnell-reveals-everything-changed-last-24-hours/

  49. Ms. Rapers statement appears complete in all items except how the matter came to public attention, her statement leaves that unanswered. It fact she implies there is no possible source for the information. Unless Foley outed himself.. unlikely

  50. Norvill wasn’t subpoenaed. She was a voluntary witness for the defence and at all times acted as such.

    While sympathy may turn out to be due to her for some reasons yet to be decided, sympathy for her being forced to testify is not one of them.

Comments Page 31 of 40
1 … 30 31 32 … 40

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *