←  Boxing Chat

Doghouse Boxing - Dog Pound

»

Vic Boxing Trainer Wins Murder Retrial

Glax0r's Photo Glax0r 03 Oct 2012

Vic boxing trainer wins murder retrial
12:18 AEST Wed Oct 3 2012
  

A boxing trainer jailed for the murder of a former Australian heavyweight champion has won a retrial.

Vince Cervi, 41, who won the national heavyweight title in 1995, was shot twice during a scuffle in March 2009 on the front lawn of a house in Melbourne's north.

David Allan Curran, 48, was found guilty of his murder last year and jailed.

Curran and Mr Cervi had been friends, but had fallen out over living arrangements in the rented house where Mr Cervi was Curran's landlord, the jury heard during the trial.

The Victorian Court of Appeal on Wednesday quashed the conviction and granted Curran a retrial.

Justices Peter Buchanan, Geoffrey Nettle and David Harper said new evidence on the key issue of who brought the gun to the house was grounds for a retrial.

In a new affidavit, a friend of Mr Cervi, Paul Bergman, claims that he was told by another man, Paul Bassi, that Mr Bassi had given a gun to Mr Cervi to protect himself.

Mr Bergman said that Mr Bassi told him "he was feeling guilty because he had given the deceased a gun to protect himself".

Mr Bergman also said in the affidavit that Mr Bassi's behaviour changed after Mr Cervi's death and he was taking drugs and gambling.

Mr Bassi later took his own life.

Prosecutors argued during the appeal hearing that Mr Bergman's evidence was inherently improbable and that he ought to be viewed as an unsatisfactory witness of bad character.

The justices said while there were aspects of Mr Bergman's evidence that were problematic, his evidence during cross examination was remarkably similar with what he said in the affidavit.

"All things considered, we have concluded that Mr Bergman's evidence is apparently credible or plausible or at least capable of belief," they wrote.

Curran will appear in the Victorian Supreme Court on October 17 for a directions hearing.
Quote

9secondko's Photo 9secondko 03 Oct 2012

Wow.

Talk about something fishy going on.

A murderer gets released due to hearsay from a dead guy.




There is no way to know the reasons for Bassis suicide.
And it doesn't matter how the gun got there.

Curran used the weapon (whether he owned it or not), pulled the trigger, and ended the life of his landlord. Because he was mad.

Where is justice anymore?
Quote

rayajr's Photo rayajr 03 Oct 2012

 9secondko, on 03 October 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Wow.

Talk about something fishy going on.

A murderer gets released due to hearsay from a dead guy.




There is no way to know the reasons for Bassis suicide.
And it doesn't matter how the gun got there.

Curran used the weapon (whether he owned it or not), pulled the trigger, and ended the life of his landlord. Because he was mad.

Where is justice anymore?
You have no idea wtf you're talking about.
Quote

9secondko's Photo 9secondko 03 Oct 2012

 rayajr, on 03 October 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:


You have no idea wtf you're talking about.

Then you didn't read the article.

Surprise, surprise...


A "freind said" that the guy who committed suicide "told me" that he gave the victim a gun.

1) that's beyond hearsay with no evidence.

2) it does nothing to disprove the real issue: cervi shooting and killing curran. Because he was mad.

No need for a retrial.
Quote

rayajr's Photo rayajr 03 Oct 2012

 9secondko, on 03 October 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:



Then you didn't read the article.

Surprise, surprise...


A "freind said" that the guy who committed suicide "told me" that he gave the victim a gun.

1) that's beyond hearsay with no evidence.

2) it does nothing to disprove the real issue: cervi shooting and killing curran. Because he was mad.

No need for a retrial.
Seriously, who takes care of you? You seem incapable of functioning in the real world. Are you telling me you're stupid enough to think you have a better understanding of this case than judges and lawyers from across the world who actually studied this case? please tell me you're joking.

Whoever brought the gun to the fight bears a responsibility for the shooting. We need more details of the shooting to know how much responsibility, but it definitely matters who brought the gun.
Quote

9secondko's Photo 9secondko 03 Oct 2012

 rayajr, on 03 October 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:


Seriously, who takes care of you? You seem incapable of functioning in the real world. Are you telling me you're stupid enough to think you have a better understanding of this case than judges and lawyers from across the world who actually studied this case? please tell me you're joking.

Whoever brought the gun to the fight bears a responsibility for the shooting. We need more details of the shooting to know how much responsibility, but it definitely matters who brought the gun.

Right. Like everything is fair in the world.

Obviously your in much more need of looking after.

Since you can't see the guy was already convicted... By the same judges you trust so much.

And there is no proof the victim brought the gun. It's hearsay! From a dead guy....
Quote

rayajr's Photo rayajr 03 Oct 2012

 9secondko, on 03 October 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:



Right. Like everything is fair in the world.

Obviously your in much more need of looking after.

Since you can't see the guy was already convicted... By the same judges you trust so much.

And there is no proof the victim brought the gun. It's hearsay! From a dead guy....
If its any consolation I think it's sad that you're as stupid as you are. Judges ain't in the business of overturning themselves, so when they grant a retrial it's based on a lot more than hearsay.
Quote

9secondko's Photo 9secondko 03 Oct 2012

 rayajr, on 03 October 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:


If its any consolation I think it's sad that you're as stupid as you are. Judges ain't in the business of overturning themselves, so when they grant a retrial it's based on a lot more than hearsay.

There is no consolation in this life.
You of all people should know that by now.
And speaking of stupid, you don't know what you're talking about.
The reason for the successful appeal was spelled out. It looks like this:
H
E
A
R
S
A
Y
Get the lard out of your eyes for a sec.
Quote

Knackers's Photo Knackers 03 Oct 2012

My understanding is that the court admitted evidence from the dead guy, which in itself is grounds for appeal as the deceased cannot be cross-examined by the defense.

In other words, the original trial judge erred and by default a retrial is required as per Victorian state law.
Quote

9secondko's Photo 9secondko 03 Oct 2012

 Knackers, on 03 October 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

My understanding is that the court admitted evidence from the dead guy, which in itself is grounds for appeal as the deceased cannot be cross-examined by the defense.

In other words, the original trial judge erred and by default a retrial is required as per Victorian state law.

They didn't admit this "evidence" until the appeal.

The hearsay is being treated as new "evidence".
Quote

Knackers's Photo Knackers 03 Oct 2012

 9secondko, on 03 October 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:



They didn't admit this "evidence" until the appeal.

The hearsay is being treated as new "evidence".
Yes they did you dickhead. Try reading more than an AAP report on the subject and you'll find out.

Pretty confident I've got a better handle on court proceedings and the rule of law in the state of Victoria as I fucking live here.
Quote

Knackers's Photo Knackers 03 Oct 2012

Get someone to read this to you, numbnuts:

http://m.theage.com....1003-26yiq.html
Quote

9secondko's Photo 9secondko 03 Oct 2012

 Knackers, on 03 October 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:


Yes they did you dickhead. Try reading more than an AAP report on the subject and you'll find out.

Pretty confident I've got a better handle on court proceedings and the rule of law in the state of Victoria as I fucking live here.

Oh I see. Because you live there.


Great credentials, <insert overused, sensitivity inspired cuss word nickname here>.

And that article you link to says nothing about where the gun came from. Does a good job at saying who killed who though.

The appeal doesn't even change that.

So go back to sleep you cranky old codger you.
Quote

Knackers's Photo Knackers 03 Oct 2012

Learn to read, troll. Or eat a bucket of dicks, whatever you prefer.
Quote

9secondko's Photo 9secondko 03 Oct 2012

 Knackers, on 03 October 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

Learn to read, troll. Or eat a bucket of dicks, whatever you prefer.

Wow. So my post was modded. I think someone needs to go ahead and get fired now.

Since you like those buckets so much, have at it. Not for me.
Quote