Scots cagefighter 'left for dead' after cabbie beat him unconscious with crowbar

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:03 pm

A Scots backpacker has told how he was "left for dead" in the street after he was brutally attacked by a taxi driver with a crowbar. Former cagefighter Euan Fraser, 30, said the cabbie beat him unconscious on his doorstep leaving him with a bleed on the brain. He claims the attack happened after he got out of the car in Melbourne following what he thought was a harmless discussion about religion. Euan, from Dundee, Scotland, was knocked out and medics did tests which showed he was struck with a thick metal pole, like a crowbar.

He was forced to shell out £4,000 for his medical treatment and now suffers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Describing the incident, Euan said: "As I got out of the taxi I just heard footsteps behind me and heard a loud bang. "Then I felt this immense pain in my head and I was knocked clean out.

"I was laid into when I was on the floor. I was left laying there in a pool of blood. He left me for dead.

"I woke up with blood in my eyes and my clothes were soaked. I stumbled into the kitchen and it looked like a murder scene.

"I had never seen so much blood. My whole body was in agony. I was so scared.

"I needed 12 stitches on my face and I had a few broken ribs, a dislocated shoulder and a bleed on the brain.

"It has totally changed my life forever."

Euan, who stands 6ft 5ins tall, flagged down the yellow cab after a night out with a friend in Melbourne in June last year. He recalls how he and the taxi driver spoke "at length" about the driver's Muslim background and he became visibly annoyed when Euan said he was an atheist. Euan, who was working on a farm at the time, argued that religion had "played a part in causing deaths and wars" throughout history. Architecture student Euan said: "He didn't like it at all when I started expressing my views. He started to preach his religion on me.

"I argued that science was responsible for evolution rather than religion, which he didn't like either.

"I tried to change the conversation but he kept going on about it. I could see he was getting wound up."

He got out of the car expecting the cabbie to drive off when he was smashed over the head and "beaten to a pulp".

When he woke up he recalls having pain all over his body and believes his assaulter battered him as he laid unresponsive on the pavement.
He stumbled into his home before collapsing on the kitchen floor. Euan sustained bruised ribs, a battered shoulder, multiple cuts to his face and a bleed on the brain during the sickening attack. He called an Uber to Sunshine Hospital in Melbourne where he stayed for around a week, and was forced to borrow money from friends to pay for a £4,000 medical bill. He was treated on a specialist mental health ward after he started experiencing suicidal thoughts. Euan has been reimbursed for his medical bills and awarded £2,500 in injury compensation by the Australian government following the attack.

Police investigated but have yet to trace the taxi driver.

Euan travelled home to his family a few weeks after the attack and has only just felt able to speak out.

He said he's petrified to step foot in a taxi and his confidence has been shattered.

Euan, who lives with girlfriend, Sharon Macrae, 34, said he's been left mentally scarred, now suffers with PTSD and often has nightmares.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-cagefighter-left-dead-after-13499987

by Original Quill Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:18 pm

How does he know it was the cabbie if he was attacked from behind and rendered unconscious?

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:How does he know it was the cabbie if he was attacked from behind and rendered unconscious?

Who else had a motive?

Cabbie was upset with the conversation, because of the religion of peace being trumped by science

He heard footsteps behind him and does not say if anyone else was there

He was not robbed

Put two and two together

by Original Quill Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:24 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:How does he know it was the cabbie if he was attacked from behind and rendered unconscious?

Who else had a motive?

Cabbie was upset with the conversation, because of the religion of peace being trumped by science

He heard footsteps behind him and does not say if anyone else was there

He was not robbed

Put two and two together

Meh...that's tenuous at best. Without a positive identification I wouldn't take that case to trial if I were the prosecutor,

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Who else had a motive?

Cabbie was upset with the conversation, because of the religion of peace being trumped by science

He heard footsteps behind him and does not say if anyone else was there

He was not robbed

Put two and two together

Meh...that's tenuous at best. Without a positive identification I wouldn't take that case to trial if I were the prosecutor,

So you are saying the Police should not follow up an investigation on what he remembers?

Again, who else had a motive?

He is in a different country, so who would know him?

He was not robbed

Now we know he was beaten to an inch of his life and with a metal object

by Original Quill Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:38 pm

Didge wrote:Again, who else had a motive?

Motive is not an element, although it is used to establish identity. But your motive is tenuous at best. It depends on someone independently getting inside the cabbie's head, which is impossible. After all, the alleged argument is only the victim's story.

Your better off going with the process of elimination, assuming there was no one else about. Even then, nothing precludes someone sneaking up behind and clubbing the victim. Maybe it was an ex-wife.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Again, who else had a motive?

Motive is not an element, although it is used to establish identity. But your motive is tenuous at best. It depends on someone independently getting inside the cabbie's head, which is impossible. After all, the alleged argument is the victim's story.

Your better off going with the process of elimination, assuming there was no one else about. Even then, nothing precludes someone sneaking up behind and clubbing the victim. Maybe it was an ex-wife.

How is it tenuous, when as stated, the claim, is the cabbie was agitated over a conversation?

The victim has serious injuries and now Post traumatic stress, showing this clearly has ongoing effects to the victim

The reality is this, at present you can offer no other motive, other than the one provided

So again who else had a motive?

by Original Quill Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:49 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Motive is not an element, although it is used to establish identity. But your motive is tenuous at best. It depends on someone independently getting inside the cabbie's head, which is impossible. After all, the alleged argument is the victim's story.

Your better off going with the process of elimination, assuming there was no one else about. Even then, nothing precludes someone sneaking up behind and clubbing the victim. Maybe it was an ex-wife.

How is it tenuous, when as stated, the claim, is the cabbie was agitated over a conversation?

The victim has serious injuries and now Post traumatic stress, showing this clearly has ongoing effects to the victim

The reality is this, at present you can offer no other motive, other than the one provided

So again who else had a motive?

It's tenuous because it is only one side of the story. There is no corroboration. They don't even have a weapon. As I said, maybe it was an ex-wife and he's trying to conceal her identity.

I assume the victim's injuries are established, or a matter of record. That does nothing to identify the perp.

As to who else has motive, it could be a girlfriend he doesn't want his wife to know about. It could be a business partner arguing over an illegal business deal turned sour. It could be anyone and anything, because we only have his story.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:54 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

How is it tenuous, when as stated, the claim, is the cabbie was agitated over a conversation?

The victim has serious injuries and now Post traumatic stress, showing this clearly has ongoing effects to the victim

The reality is this, at present you can offer no other motive, other than the one provided

So again who else had a motive?

It's tenuous because it is only one side of the story. There is no corroboration. As I said, maybe it was an ex-wife and he's trying to conceal her identity.

I assume the victims injuries are established, or a matter of record. That does nothing to identify the perp.

As to who else has motive, it could be a girlfriend he doesn't want his wife to know about. It could be a business partner arguing over a business deal turned sour. It could be anyone and anything, because we only have his story.

ex-wife, whilst he is Australia on holiday?

And you wonder why people do not take you seriously?

How on earth would she know he was where he was?

Let alone, he has never been married, he has a girlfriend though, who has been at his side through this traumatic experince

She was not there when the attack happened either

You are making up bullshit

Again, do you not think, he would have avdised the police of other posssibilities?

Again he is on holiday, he has just had an argument with a cabbie on religion and after getting out of the car going to his door, immediatelly he is followed and repeatedly smashed with a crowbar

Even Miss Marple would see this as and open and shut case

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:58 pm

So Quill takes the word of Christine Blasey Ford, where there is no corroborating witnesses or no evidence of a crime

Here Euan Fraser, 30 has mutiple head and shoulder injuries, bleeding to the brain, broken ribs and now suffers from post traumatic stress and yet Quill does not believe his story

Some kind of sexism going on here or a good example of how the left have brainwashed people to believe anything a woman says and not what a man says.

by Original Quill Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:08 pm

Didge wrote:So Quill takes the word of Christine Blasey Ford, where there is no corroborating witnesses or no evidence of a crime

Here Euan Fraser, 30 has mutiple head and should injuries, bleeding to the brain, broken ribs and now suffers from post traumatic stress and yet Quill does not believe his story

Some kind of sexism going on here or a good example of how the left have brainwashed people to believe anything a woman says and not what a man says.

Ah, but much more is known about Dr. Ford, and all we have is the lonely denial of the perp in that case.

What is more, Dr. Ford is a published doctor of psychology and teaches at one of the three top universities in the nation, while the perp is a known drunk who managed to get himself appointed a judge by his father's connections.

Finally, Dr. Ford has taken and passed a polygraph test regarding her allegations. Her perp refuses to take one...which, alone, raises eyebrows.

by Original Quill Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:10 pm

Didge wrote:Again he is on holiday, he has just had an argument with a cabbie on religion and after getting out of the car going to his door, immediatelly he is followed and repeatedly smashed with a crowbar

None of which he can corroborate.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Again he is on holiday, he has just had an argument with a cabbie on religion and after getting out of the car going to his door, immediatelly he is followed and repeatedly smashed with a crowbar

None of which he can corroborate.

He has injuries consistant with a blunt metal weapon

That is evidence for you

He has mutiple blunt trauma injuries

So if he was not robbed and he was the last known person to have been with him, and its claimed to have an argument

And its also know that some Muslims are hyper sensitive to criticism of Islam (countless evidence of riots and people being murdered with this by some Muslims)

Who else had a motive?

by nicko Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:13 pm

It was a Muslim no doubt about it.!
You can't diss their religion without trouble !

by Vintage Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:30 pm

It could be a mental health issue of course.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:34 pm

Vintage wrote:It could be a mental health issue of course.

I wonder if anyone will pick up on your sarcasm lol

Very clever.

Have a good evening everyone

by Victorismyhero Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:40 pm

Sorry, BUT....I have to agree with quill in this. what he is saying encapsulates important points of law and more importantly, matters of natural justice

you are tending in this case didge to the pitchfork and torch brigade, What do you want to do, grab a Muslim cabbie any Muslim cabbie of course would do, and burn him at the stake?

granted the cabbie needs finding and questioning as a material suspect, after all he had possible motive AND he had opportunity. But much more needs to be established, as quill said NO prosecutor would even attempt to take this to court...with what evidence you have presented, I doubt you would even win a civil claim.....where the burden of proof is much less

by Victorismyhero Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:46 pm

whilst I have no love of the ideology of islam and a distrust and dislike of some of its more fanatical followers, since they are a threat to safety and security of both person and freedom what you have just posted Didge and Nicko, reads frighteningly like 1930's propaganda against the jews....name a crime and blame a (insert whatever demographic you like), never mind PROOF (and proof beyond a shadow of doubt too). We CANNOT allow different standards of proof to apply to different demographics and at the same time call ourselves a society which values lawfulness.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:46 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Sorry, BUT....I have to agree with quill in this. what he is saying encapsulates important points of law and more importantly, matters of natural justice

you are tending in this case didge to the pitchfork and torch brigade, What do you want to do, grab a Muslim cabbie any Muslim cabbie of course would do, and burn him at the stake?

granted the cabbie needs finding and questioning as a material suspect, after all he had possible motive AND he had opportunity. But much more needs to be established, as quill said NO prosecutor would even attempt to take this to court...with what evidence you have presented, I doubt you would even win a civil claim.....where the burden of proof is much less

You can agree all you like, which goes back to my points to Quill

Who exactly had a motive?

He is another country on holiday

He is not going to make many enemies that quickly or if he has enemies in Scotland, how would they know where he would exactly be at that time. Being the fact he is using a cab late at night?

He has not been robbed, so who else has a motive?

Now the person in question has not been found, but I have no doubt to the validity of this story and why do you think that?

Why else would he make it up, after suffering said injuries?

Would he want someone else to take the rap for this or who actually did this?

It seems obvious who is the clear suspect in all of this

The cab driver

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:50 pm

Lord Foul wrote:whilst I have no love of the ideology of islam and a distrust and dislike of some of its more fanatical followers, since they are a threat to safety and security of both person and freedom what you have just posted Didge and Nicko, reads frighteningly like 1930's propaganda against the jews....name a crime and blame a (insert whatever demographic you like), never mind PROOF (and proof beyond a shadow of doubt too). We CANNOT allow different standards of proof to apply to different demographics and at the same time call ourselves a society which values lawfulness.

Does not sound like the 1930's at all, as I am going off the evidence of the victim, who has injuries

He does not claim that this could have been anyone else

What you seem to be suggesting is he is making this up, after suffering life changing injuries

Who would go through that, just to make this up and blame Muslims?

Seriously?

He is not even blaming Muslims, but this one Muslim, who he states was clearly angered over views on religion

The police are not looking for anyone else but this individual

So how on earth is that like the 1930's?

Seriously, when its very well know some Muslim are hyper sensitive to their religion

Example charlie hebdo

by Victorismyhero Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:52 pm

true he is a suspect, I never said otherwise, however, what you are offering as "evidence" is mere happenstance, it is NOT in anyway proof.....

even IF you could fit ALL 3 prime requirements for suspicion.....motive, opportunity AND means....to him that is ALL they are, requirements for suspicion....those alone would NOT support a prosecuter going ahead.....

by Victorismyhero Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:53 pm

ahem didge....did you actually read the last para of my first post on this????

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:57 pm

Lord Foul wrote:true he is a suspect, I never said otherwise, however, what you are offering as "evidence" is mere happenstance, it is NOT in anyway proof.....

even IF you could fit ALL 3 prime requirements for suspicion.....motive, opportunity AND means....to him that is ALL they are, requirements for suspicion....those alone would NOT support a prosecuter going ahead.....

So what else do the Police follow on the case?

The reality is this, he was having a heated debated that turned more argumentive, as claimed by the victim

We do know that some people are incensed when their religions are question, to the extend violence happens against them

There is over 2000 years of history of examples of this happenning

The incident happened within seconds of him leaving the cab

There is a clear motive for you

This does mean all Muslims are like this or even all religious people are like this, but its a well known fact some religious people are extreme in their beliefs.

The reality is this, he had injuries that could have killed him. It was not simple one hit to the head but mutiple, whilst he was unconcious.

That shows the extent and hate/anger inflicted within the blows

So what are the possibilities here, other than the one offered by the victim?

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:58 pm

Lord Foul wrote:ahem didge....did you actually read the last para of my first post on this????

Yes I did thank you and thus I continue to ask, how else should the Police follow up on the leads?

by Victorismyhero Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:01 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:whilst I have no love of the ideology of islam and a distrust and dislike of some of its more fanatical followers, since they are a threat to safety and security of both person and freedom what you have just posted Didge and Nicko, reads frighteningly like 1930's propaganda against the jews....name a crime and blame a (insert whatever demographic you like), never mind PROOF (and proof beyond a shadow of doubt too). We CANNOT allow different standards of proof to apply to different demographics and at the same time call ourselves a society which values lawfulness.

Does not sound like the 1930's at all, as I am going off the evidence of the victim, who has injuries

NOT evidence, merely a supposition (however well founded) on the victims part

He does not claim that this could have been anyone else

That doesnt change the fact that it COULD be

What you seem to be suggesting is he is making this up, after suffering life changing injuries

obviously he isnt making up the fact he was attacked

Who would go through that, just to make this up and blame Muslims?

someone like Tommy, (and a range of others)

Seriously?

He is not even blaming Muslims, but this one Muslim, who he states was clearly angered over views on religion

which leads one to suspect...not indict

The police are not looking for anyone else but this individual

thats sadly how police work...concentrate exclusively on "the most likely suspect" (which I dont doubt the cabbie IS...but as said....to PROSECUTE needs much more)

So how on earth is that like the 1930's?

Seriously, when its very well know some Muslim are hyper sensitive to their religion

Example charlie hebdo

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:02 pm

The most damning point also Victor is very simple

The cab driver clearly would have been a witness to the nights events, if he was innocent.

Why have they not come forward to elimiate themselves from the investigation?

Clearly they could say if there was anyone else around and offer vital information to the Police

This cab driver has not come forward, which is telling in itself

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:05 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

Does not sound like the 1930's at all, as I am going off the evidence of the victim, who has injuries

NOT evidence, merely a supposition (however well founded) on the victims part

He does not claim that this could have been anyone else

That doesnt change the fact that it COULD be

What you seem to be suggesting is he is making this up, after suffering life changing injuries

obviously he isnt making up the fact he was attacked

Who would go through that, just to make this up and blame Muslims?

someone like Tommy, (and a range of others)

Seriously?

He is not even blaming Muslims, but this one Muslim, who he states was clearly angered over views on religion

which leads one to suspect...not indict

The police are not looking for anyone else but this individual

thats sadly how police work...concentrate exclusively on "the most likely suspect" (which I dont doubt the cabbie IS...but as said....to PROSECUTE needs much more)

So how on earth is that like the 1930's?

Seriously, when its very well know some Muslim are hyper sensitive to their religion

Example charlie hebdo

But you are not offering any other motive and neither is the victim

He is clear on the motive and that he has terrible injuries

So the police are not looking for anyone else and clear this man does not have any other enemies he thinks could have done this.

Again you simple are discounting the probability factor here, being that who else would have known he would be there at that given time?

That leads to only one suspect, the cab driver

No matter how poorly you try to argue otherwise

And cut the babble about 1930's thinking, on that you are in ignorance on compared to my knowledge

That was low from you to even paint such a pathetic claim

by Victorismyhero Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:07 pm

I dont think quill is making a claim that the cabbie should NOT be investigated...I think he's jumping the gun to a trial, a bad habit with lawyers......especially proscutor type lawyers...who need to get it right every time (and they dont) cos the look silly otherwise....

SO...I agree the cabbie needs finding and treating as a prime suspect
BUT ...what you have at the moment is so tennuous I doubt you would even get a remanded in custody decision from a judge......

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:08 pm

Lord Foul wrote:I dont think quill is making a claim that the cabbie should NOT be investigated...I think he's jumping the gun to a trial, a bad habit with lawyers......especially proscutor type lawyers...who need to get it right every time (and they dont) cos the look silly otherwise....

SO...I agree the cabbie needs finding and treating as a prime suspect
BUT ...what you have at the moment is so tennuous I doubt you would even get a remanded in custody decision from a judge......

Which means Quill is discounting the evidence of the victim, as I said

The fact is the cab driver has not come forward

Now either this is fictional and he never got a cab home, which seems very far fetched based off his injuries, or there is validity to his claim

So who is the prime suspect?

The cab driver

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:12 pm

Didge wrote:So Quill takes the word of Christine Blasey Ford, where there is no corroborating witnesses or no evidence of a crime

Here Euan Fraser, 30 has mutiple head and shoulder injuries, bleeding to the brain, broken ribs and now suffers from post traumatic stress and yet Quill does not believe his story

Some kind of sexism going on here or a good example of how the left have brainwashed people to believe anything a woman says and not what a man says.

Oh and Victor, this shows that Quill picks and chooses what he believes

by Victorismyhero Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:17 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

Does not sound like the 1930's at all, as I am going off the evidence of the victim, who has injuries

NOT evidence, merely a supposition (however well founded) on the victims part

He does not claim that this could have been anyone else

That doesnt change the fact that it COULD be

What you seem to be suggesting is he is making this up, after suffering life changing injuries

obviously he isnt making up the fact he was attacked

Who would go through that, just to make this up and blame Muslims?

someone like Tommy, (and a range of others)

Seriously?

He is not even blaming Muslims, but this one Muslim, who he states was clearly angered over views on religion

which leads one to suspect...not indict

The police are not looking for anyone else but this individual

thats sadly how police work...concentrate exclusively on "the most likely suspect" (which I dont doubt the cabbie IS...but as said....to PROSECUTE needs much more)

So how on earth is that like the 1930's?

Seriously, when its very well know some Muslim are hyper sensitive to their religion

Example charlie hebdo

But you are not offering any other motive and neither is the victim

He is clear on the motive and that he has terrible injuries

Firstly I am not investigating so cant possibly find "other motives"
secondly the fact the victim cant think of another motive doesnt preclude there being one

So the police are not looking for anyone else and clear this man does not have any other enemies he thinks could have done this.

that doesnt preclude the random psycho for instance....

Again you simple are discounting the probability factor here, being that who else would have known he would be there at that given time?

probability has little weight in criminal law compared to the REQUIRED hard evidence...remember ...BEYOND a shadow of doubt

That leads to only one suspect, the cab driver

thats the point...suspect,

No matter how poorly you try to argue otherwise

And cut the babble about 1930's thinking, on that you are in ignorance on compared to my knowledge

I'll concede that I probably know less than you on that history, however the attitude that "he's a Muslim (or whatever), he MUST have done it " is exactly the sort of thing we should be ashamed of if we claim to be a society of justice.....and incidently ONE of the attitudes aimed, not just at jews in 1930's but at ALL minorities throughout the ages....

That was low from you to even paint such a pathetic claim

by Victorismyhero Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:21 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:I dont think quill is making a claim that the cabbie should NOT be investigated...I think he's jumping the gun to a trial, a bad habit with lawyers......especially proscutor type lawyers...who need to get it right every time (and they dont) cos the look silly otherwise....

SO...I agree the cabbie needs finding and treating as a prime suspect
BUT ...what you have at the moment is so tennuous I doubt you would even get a remanded in custody decision from a judge......

Which means Quill is discounting the evidence of the victim, as I said

The fact is the cab driver has not come forward

Now either this is fictional and he never got a cab home, which seems very far fetched based off his injuries, or there is validity to his claim

So who is the prime suspect?

The cab driver

and supposing they find a likely cab driver...what then....there is NO prosecuteable evidence so far, even the victims words are not "evidence" they are an allegation

you would need to find the weapon, tie that to BOTH the alleged perp AND the victim as a minimum....

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:22 pm

Lord Foul wrote:I'll concede that I probably know less than you on that history, however the attitude that "he's a Muslim (or whatever), he MUST have done it " is exactly the sort of thing we should be ashamed of if we claim to be a society of justice.....and incidently ONE of the attitudes aimed, not just at jews in 1930's but at ALL minorities throughout the ages....

Where based on a number of incidents around the world where Muslims have taken offense to criticism and ridicule of Islam.

How is that not relevant?

Being the fact this man was attacked and claims it was the cab driver?

This is offereing a motive behind this story and to claim, its wrong to say this could be the motive is to me poor PC

So is there a correlation to my points and the evidence provided by the victim?

Yes

How does that make it like the 1930's based on the evidence by the victim, there was a heated exchange in the car about religion?

Are we simple to discount that from the case now?

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:24 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

Which means Quill is discounting the evidence of the victim, as I said

The fact is the cab driver has not come forward

Now either this is fictional and he never got a cab home, which seems very far fetched based off his injuries, or there is validity to his claim

So who is the prime suspect?

The cab driver

and supposing they find a likely cab driver...what then....there is NO prosecuteable evidence so far, even the victims words are not "evidence" they are an allegation

you would need to find the weapon, tie that to BOTH the alleged perp AND the victim as a minimum....

It would be helpful to find the weapon, but he would also need provide an alibi for his movements that night.

If he is the cab driver, then again, why has he not come forward to eliminate himself from the investigation?

Oh by the way, you do not need to find the weapon, to be able to convict people of a crime

by Syl Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:25 pm

I wonder why the taxi driver hasn't been traced?
All taxi drivers unless they are operating illegally should be easy to trace, and when he is his cab should be searched for blood dna from the victim.

Eay peasy.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:28 pm

Syl wrote:I wonder why the taxi driver hasn't been traced?
All taxi drivers unless they are operating illegally should be easy to trace, and when he is his cab should be searched for blood dna from the victim.

Eay peasy.

What if the company he is working for is covering for him?

by Syl Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:29 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:I wonder why the taxi driver hasn't been traced?
All taxi drivers unless they are operating illegally should be easy to trace, and when he is his cab should be searched for blood dna from the victim.

Eay peasy.

What if the company he is working for is covering for him?

Well thats what countries have police forces for Didge....to investigate. Wink

by Victorismyhero Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:30 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:I'll concede that I probably know less than you on that history, however the attitude that "he's a Muslim (or whatever), he MUST have done it " is exactly the sort of thing we should be ashamed of if we claim to be a society of justice.....and incidently ONE of the attitudes aimed, not just at jews in 1930's but at ALL minorities throughout the ages....

Where based on a number of incidents around the world where Muslims have taken offense to criticism and ridicule of Islam.

How is that not relevant?

Being the fact this man was attacked and claims it was the cab driver?

This is offereing a motive behind this story and to claim, its wrong to say this could be the motive is to me poor PC

So is there a correlation to my points and the evidence provided by the victim?

Yes

How does that make it like the 1930's based on the evidence by the victim, there was a heated exchange in the car about religion?

Are we simple to discount that from the case now?

obvioiusly not, however motive is but one link in a complex chain and does NOT equate to evidence of guilt.
sure treat the cabbie as a prime suspect..he does have questions to answer under the circumstances but as things stand there is nothing, as quill points out, that would lead a prosecutor to prosecute NOR a fair minded jury to convict.......

what have you got in reality

yes he was there ...at some point very close to the time of the assault
yes he got angry about an issue

so....

show me the crowbar/whatever
show me BOTH the cabbies DNA and the victims DNA on it and incidently also show that there was no one elses DNA on it at the end held by the attacker......
show me the inevitable blood spatter patterns on the cabbies clothes (and PROVE the blood belongs to the victim)

as a minimum......THEN I might say yes prosecute or Yes GUILTY

by nicko Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:32 pm

Islam is the only religion witch will not take any criticism of itself without violent reaction, hence it was a Muslim !

by Victorismyhero Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:32 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

Which means Quill is discounting the evidence of the victim, as I said

The fact is the cab driver has not come forward

Now either this is fictional and he never got a cab home, which seems very far fetched based off his injuries, or there is validity to his claim

So who is the prime suspect?

The cab driver

and supposing they find a likely cab driver...what then....there is NO prosecuteable evidence so far, even the victims words are not "evidence" they are an allegation

you would need to find the weapon, tie that to BOTH the alleged perp AND the victim as a minimum....

It would be helpful to find the weapon, but he would also need provide an alibi for his movements that night.

If he is the cab driver, then again, why has he not come forward to eliminate himself from the investigation?

Oh by the way, you do not need to find the weapon, to be able to convict people of a crime

true but.....you DO need to tie the victim and perp with more than just casual association.....

by Victorismyhero Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:33 pm

nicko wrote:Islam is the only religion witch will not take any criticism of itself without violent reaction, hence it was a Muslim !

Now now nicko......there are any number of dead who will attest to that being something of a fiction.....even football fans.....

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:35 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

Where based on a number of incidents around the world where Muslims have taken offense to criticism and ridicule of Islam.

How is that not relevant?

Being the fact this man was attacked and claims it was the cab driver?

This is offereing a motive behind this story and to claim, its wrong to say this could be the motive is to me poor PC

So is there a correlation to my points and the evidence provided by the victim?

Yes

How does that make it like the 1930's based on the evidence by the victim, there was a heated exchange in the car about religion?

Are we simple to discount that from the case now?

obvioiusly not, however motive is but one link in a complex chain and does NOT equate to evidence of guilt.
sure treat the cabbie as a prime suspect..he does have questions to answer under the circumstances but as things stand there is nothing, as quill points out, that would lead a prosecutor to prosecute NOR a fair minded jury to convict.......

what have you got in reality

yes he was there ...at some point very close to the time of the assault
yes he got angry about an issue

so....

show me the crowbar/whatever
show me BOTH the cabbies DNA and the victims DNA on it and incidently also show that there was no one elses DNA on it at the end held by the attacker......
show me the inevitable blood spatter patterns on the cabbies clothes (and PROVE the blood belongs to the victim)

as a minimum......THEN I might say yes prosecute or Yes GUILTY

I dont need to show you the crowbar, if blood is found on the clothes of the cab driver that match the victims DNA do I?

All that is really needed is for them to find who was the cab driver for the nigh

Then to explain why he has not come forward

This is not down or based on how you think a guilty verdict should be given Victor is it?

The victim has claimed he was attacked by the driver

The Police investigate, if they then find who the driver was that night and he has no alibi and has not come forward.

How will that look to any jury?

So I do not need to show you anything

What needs to happen now is to find the suspect and either charge him or eliminate him from the investigation

Low and beyold he is an UBER driver

by Original Quill Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:37 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:true he is a suspect, I never said otherwise, however, what you are offering as "evidence" is mere happenstance, it is NOT in anyway proof.....

even IF you could fit ALL 3 prime requirements for suspicion.....motive, opportunity AND means....to him that is ALL they are, requirements for suspicion....those alone would NOT support a prosecuter going ahead.....

So what else do the Police follow on the case?

The reality is this, he was having a heated debated that turned more argumentive, as claimed by the victim

We do know that some people are incensed when their religions are question, to the extend violence happens against them

There is over 2000 years of history of examples of this happenning

The incident happened within seconds of him leaving the cab

There is a clear motive for you

This does mean all Muslims are like this or even all religious people are like this, but its a well known fact some religious people are extreme in their beliefs.

The reality is this, he had injuries that could have killed him. It was not simple one hit to the head but mutiple, whilst he was unconcious.

That shows the extent and hate/anger inflicted within the blows

So what are the possibilities here, other than the one offered by the victim?

What you have described above is a theory of the case. The victim says he was having a heated debate. We have nothing else to establish this. Was it even about religion? Again, only the victim’s claim. “We do know that some people are incensed when their religions are question,” but is that evidence in this case? We all know that Muslims are caring, compassionate people, too. That amounts to nothing here.

It happened after exiting the cab? In 100% of the cases, all passengers leave cabs, so there is nothing narrowing about the timing of the incident. Besides, that’s just one person’s story. If anything, I would question how, if it were the driver, he got out of the car and over to the other side before the victim was gone inside.

It’s just one person’s story. There were no other witnesses. They don’t even have a weapon. Even the description of he cab driver is suspect…maybe the reason why the police can’t find the driver is he isn’t even Muslim. He might be indigenous Australian, for all we know. It all boils down to one person’s memory, possibly impaired by being hit on the head, in a foreign city, no weapon, no witnesses, no crowbar, no cab, no driver…and a hell of a tale to tell his mates back in Dundee.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:39 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

It would be helpful to find the weapon, but he would also need provide an alibi for his movements that night.

If he is the cab driver, then again, why has he not come forward to eliminate himself from the investigation?

Oh by the way, you do not need to find the weapon, to be able to convict people of a crime

true but.....you DO need to tie the victim and perp with more than just casual association.....

Which is my point

Is the cab company covering this up?

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:40 pm

COP BLOCKED: Uber app thwarted arrests of its drivers by fooling police with 'ghost cars'
Ride-sharing tech bros accused of shady behavior shocker

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/03/uber_app_greyball/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/04/uber-criminal-investigation-greyball

Have a read Victor

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:20 am

Oh come off it vic...

If someone is on their way home in a cab and is then immediately attacked from behind after walking away from the cab, and after having a heated disagreeable discussion with the driver of the cab... regardless of what the disagreement was about... then surely the prime suspect would be the cab driver...!!!

And given the fact that the cab driver hasn't been found, and either ruled in/out of being the perp, plus the guy wasnt robbed, plus that there were no other likely known reasons for anyone else to have wanted to carry out any such attack on him... the obvious likely guilty party was the cab driver...!!!

Why do some people lose all sight of common sense when a crime by possibly a Muslim is concerned...???

by Victorismyhero Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:24 am

nothing to do with Muslim or non Muslim Tommy, and ALL to do with the rule of law and the fact that law HAS to preserve its own integrity

nowhere have I suggested that the cabbie should not be a prime suspect....after all it is likely that he was indeed the only person available.....

BUT as quill points out, there is nothing so far that would lead a prosecutor to move....

EVIDENCE is needed and the victims statement and allegation is NOT evidence.

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:38 am

And quill...

"It’s just one person’s story. There were no other witnesses."

I see you don't apply the same skepticism to the even more unlikely claims of others... dr ford for example...

by Original Quill Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:44 am

Well, technically it is evidence. Only it's uncorroborated evidence. There are no other witnesses to give testimony, nor is there any tangible evidence such as a crowbar, a tire print, or a cell phone recording.

Building a case like building a wall. Each brick interlaces with the next, rests on ones below, and supports the ones above. Here you have one brick--the victim's lone story--with no support anywhere above, below or around.

by Original Quill Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:49 am

Tommy Monk wrote:And quill...

"It’s just one person’s story. There were no other witnesses."

I see you don't apply the same skepticism to the even more unlikely claims of others... dr ford for example...

Dr. Ford had taken and passed a polygraph exam, which supported her testimony. An independent polygraph test is strong corroborating evidence.

The fact that her perp had refused to submit to the same test, creates a strong inference that he knows her story is true.

by Sponsored content