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

First topic message reminder :

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

polygaphs, whilst beloved of american law pundits are mere smoke and mirror devices, about as accurate as alchemy and I certainly wouldnt trust the results of one.....

Lord Foul wrote:polygaphs, whilst beloved of american law pundits are mere smoke and mirror devices, about as accurate as alchemy and I certainly wouldnt trust the results of one.....

Polygraphs have an 84% accuracy rate. That is pretty strong reliability, although I would not board an airplane that has a 16% chance of never reaching its destination. The chances are not strong enough to be admissible in a criminal trial (where the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt), however they ought to be given a glance if you are considering giving someone a lifetime job running the strongest, deadliest power in the world.

and what is their accuracy on someone who is strongly in control of their emotions

or can control their reactions

or indeed on the opposite end of the scale is highly volatile.....or nervous (like for instance a coloured in a southern state)

about zero I would think...

your 84% is based on a one size fits all assesment....as they say "across the population as a whole" and at 84% is totally unfit for purpose because of that

Lord Foul wrote:and what is their accuracy on someone who is strongly in control of their emotions

or can control their reactions

or indeed on the opposite end of the scale is highly volatile.....or nervous (like for instance a coloured in a southern state)

about zero I would think...

your 84% is based on a one size fits all assesment....as they say "across the population as a whole" and at 84% is totally unfit for purpose because of that

If you've got any information that the numbers are skewed in certain circumstances, let's hear it.  That's what a court would say.  In the meantime, 84% is the accuracy rate.

Polygraph tests are reliable enough that the FBI and police still use them in investigations, particularly to guide them in certain decisions.  They just don't use results as evidence for trials because courts don't accept them.

However, polygraph results can be stipulated to be admitted at trial.  So, the court's are saying that they aren't tainted enough to be prejudicial error, either.

It really depends on what is at stake.  If the polygraph evidence would condemn someone, as in a criminal trial, the bias of presumption should be against polygraphs since the standard is so heavy.  However, if the polygraph results are offered to suggest someone is unqualified in a job interview, the bias of presumption should be in favor of allowing the evidence, since you are looking into rewarding someone, not condemning him.  One does have a right to fundamental rights and a presumption of innocence, but not to riches or power.