Ben Roberts-Smith VC Defamation Trial

They are going to have a bit of a problem interviewing witnesses in Afghanistan.

Already done.

And after Shahzad Aka fluffed his lines - I would suggest that they will all need to be interviewed again, because every witness statement will now be ripped apart.

I said it before and I will say it again - This appears to be Phil Shiner Mk2.

* That is not to say that misconducted did not happen, but I think it will be nowhere near the levels of severity that have been claimed.

** After the 4 year Brereton enquiry - Has anyone been charged with murder yet ?
 
And after Shahzad Aka fluffed his lines - I would suggest that they will all need to be interviewed again, because every witness statement will now be ripped apart.

I said it before and I will say it again - This appears to be Phil Shiner Mk2.

* That is not to say that misconducted did not happen, but I think it will be nowhere near the levels of severity that have been claimed.

** After the 4 year Brereton enquiry - Has anyone been charged with murder yet ?
BRS VC is in court because he is suing Channel 9 (a commercial media business) for defamation. BRS VC is supported/funded by Channel 7, another commercial media business. No Shiners so far, over. AIUI Channel 9 is using the 'truth defence' ie, saying it is not defamation, it is the truth and we will prove it. This court case is a result of what a media outlet has claimed. As a separate issue, the Brereton Inquiry recommended a criminal investigation and that is currently underway. Given the state that Afghanistan is in and Covid, I imagine progress is not rapid.

As I see it, there is no witch hunt, no one is throwing the ADF or SASR under a bus or any other means of conveyance. The wheels of justice are slowly turning. We should remember that the original complaint was from members of SASR, not from outside the regiment, the media, politicians, left-wing boogey men etc. So no Shiners.

I am now going to re-read the Brereton Report, available here:

 
BRS VC is in court because he is suing Channel 9 (a commercial media business) for defamation. BRS VC is supported/funded by Channel 7, another commercial media business. No Shiners so far, over. AIUI Channel 9 is using the 'truth defence' ie, saying it is not defamation, it is the truth and we will prove it. This court case is a result of what a media outlet has claimed. As a separate issue, the Brereton Inquiry recommended a criminal investigation and that is currently underway. Given the state that Afghanistan is in and Covid, I imagine progress is not rapid.

As I see it, there is no witch hunt, no one is throwing the ADF or SASR under a bus or any other means of conveyance. The wheels of justice are slowly turning. We should remember that the original complaint was from members of SASR, not from outside the regiment, the media, politicians, left-wing boogey men etc. So no Shiners.

I am now going to re-read the Brereton Report, available here:


I fear you missed my point completely retread.

The Al - Sweaty, Phil Shiner fiasco will be brought up in any trial ( Of that you can bet your bottom $ )

Shahzad Aka lying fluffing his lines is only going to exacerbate and compound that.

Defence Teams will be going all out to discredit every Afghan witness.
 
We should remember that the original complaint was from members of SASR, not from outside the regiment, the media, politicians, left-wing boogey men etc. So no Shiners.

An inconvenient truth for the BRS fanbois. Complaints were also made by members of 2 Cdo., one of whom is a long-standing friend and served with some of the protagonists.
 
An inconvenient truth for the BRS fanbois. Complaints were also made by members of 2 Cdo., one of whom is a long-standing friend and served with some of the protagonists.

I think that the inconvenient truth will be

* That is not to say that misconducted did not happen, but I think it will be nowhere near the levels of severity that have been claimed.
 
Naturally, you would know better then Brereton.

This thread is not about Brereton

I said at the time I thought the wording in the Brereton report was wrong.

I still think it was wrong - I will be proved wrong when someone is charged, tried and convicted of murder.

That does not detract from my comment

Shahzad Aka lying fluffing his lines is only going to exacerbate and compound that.

Defence Teams will be going all out to discredit every Afghan witness.

Cos you can bet you bottom $ this will be dragged up in every case going forward.
 
No one is going to come out of this smelling of roses. BRS seems to exist in one of two camps. Either he's the good looking, square jawed arch-typical Digger who only did wrong because he was let down by the Government ('a little Aussie Battler') or he was a professional, callous killer, motivated by greed and without a sense of decency. Now, this is overlaid by a messy relationship breakup and allegations of being in a relationship with his counsel, set against cynical big business who will strive for a 'win-win' outcome. Either way, BRS will not profit from this messy business.

On the other hand, with his rippling muscles, sleeve tats and tailored uniform shirts, he would be a shoe-in to be the next SEAC here.
 
No one is going to come out of this smelling of roses. BRS seems to exist in one of two camps. Either he's the good looking, square jawed arch-typical Digger who only did wrong because he was let down by the Government ('a little Aussie Battler') or he was a professional, callous killer, motivated by greed and without a sense of decency. Now, this is overlaid by a messy relationship breakup and allegations of being in a relationship with his counsel, set against cynical big business who will strive for a 'win-win' outcome. Either way, BRS will not profit from this messy business.

On the other hand, with his rippling muscles, sleeve tats and tailored uniform shirts, he would be a shoe-in to be the next SEAC here.
One of Orwell's rough men who do dark things?
 
One of Orwell's rough men who do dark things?
Perhaps he is, operating within a legal framework but reliant on judgement.

I suspect I am one of the few on this site who has met BRS, albeit in a social setting after a commemorative event a few years ago. He has huge presence and charisma, but I cannot comment on his professionalism (indeed, possible guilt) based my short conversation with him. My (ex) wife, along with other women present - and, I suspect a few men - were starry-eyed in his presence and would have happily followed him to the Ends of the Earth.
 
I fear you missed my point completely retread.

The Al - Sweaty, Phil Shiner fiasco will be brought up in any trial ( Of that you can bet your bottom $ )

Shahzad Aka lying fluffing his lines is only going to exacerbate and compound that.

Defence Teams will be going all out to discredit every Afghan witness.
Ack - wot, me miss a point? Never.

OK, I see what you were getting at and perhaps there's a reason they are wheeling in the Afghan witnesses first, saving the more coherent ones far later.

I also wonder if BRS VC wasn't given some legal advice along the lines of: "look, go through the defamation business and there's a good chance you'll get off. When/if the same witnesses are called at any subsequent criminal case you are already one nil up."

E2A: when I say "get off" above, obviously I mean "win your case".
 
Last edited:
No one is going to come out of this smelling of roses. BRS seems to exist in one of two camps. Either he's the good looking, square jawed arch-typical Digger who only did wrong because he was let down by the Government ('a little Aussie Battler') or he was a professional, callous killer, motivated by greed and without a sense of decency. Now, this is overlaid by a messy relationship breakup and allegations of being in a relationship with his counsel, set against cynical big business who will strive for a 'win-win' outcome. Either way, BRS will not profit from this messy business.

On the other hand, with his rippling muscles, sleeve tats and tailored uniform shirts, he would be a shoe-in to be the next SEAC here.
More like a feckin' huge Aussie battler. He's a monster.
 
Perhaps he is, operating within a legal framework but reliant on judgement.

I suspect I am one of the few on this site who has met BRS, albeit in a social setting after a commemorative event a few years ago. He has huge presence and charisma, but I cannot comment on his professionalism (indeed, possible guilt) based my short conversation with him. My (ex) wife, along with other women present - and, I suspect a few men - were starry-eyed in his presence and would have happily followed him to the Ends of the Earth.
I too have had the pleasure. When he was doing his motivational speaking tours, our Govt department booked him. Our senior bloke was a retired RAA Brig so might have got a discount. TBF, despite what reservations I may have today, he spoke very, very well. He walked us through the battle for which he was awarded the VC without saying exactly what he did that was out of the ordinary. He sheeted all the success on the day home to the team.

I said that I would get back into the Brereton Inquiry report this afternoon and I did. Having got to page 240-odd, it would be reasonable to say that if there were no 'incidents' as alleged, our Afghanistan deployment would be a historical anomaly.
 

Bad Smell

Old-Salt
I have also met BRS and his wife although a week apart. I may have even had a coffee with her. Both occasions were informal and the person who introduced me was named in the media as part of the topic of this thread.

That was quite a while ago and I have a suitable amount of respect for him in his achievements both on and off the field. I have also met Keith Payne a couple of times and last time he was a bit of a grumpy old bugger and was put in his place considering the circumstances.

I too will await the outcome of both inquiries. As someone who has been through something similar in the media but not named personally, I can only imagine what he is going through.
 
OK, I see what you were getting at and perhaps there's a reason they are wheeling i the Afghan witnesses first, saving the more coherent ones far later.

Apparently that is due to Covid and now on hold until November - How those based in Australia couldn't give evidence by video link is a bit of a mystery.

I wonder if it is more to do with the Afghan National making a James Hunt of his evidence. ( Apparently his eyesight is so bad he can hardly see the ground when he is standing up )
 
Top