踩過界 Crossing The Line (by Nick McKenzie) 之四

Roberts-Smith今天提出上訴, 這決定不出奇, 因為他輸得太大, 所以再花一二百萬(澳幣)再搏一鋪。我不懂這些, 更不會去讀700多頁的判詞。但一般印象而言, 這是事實裁斷(factual findings)的民事案, 並非一對一的選擇, McKensie一方的證據具吻合的佐證, 不是張三 v 李四。究竟有沒有殺害戰俘及平民, McKensie傳召了不少特種兵作供, 也傳召了阿富汗人視象作供, 兩者之間沒有可能串謀造假, 而且Roberts-Smith的誠信也從其他行為讓法官衡量, 拒絕信納他及他的證人的講法是合理的結論, 而且是採用較低的民事案舉證標準, 我就看不到上訴庭會推翻判決的可能性。

Sydney Morning Herald從Roberts-Smith一方向法庭呈交的上訴文件中歸納了幾項理據:

Roberts-Smith’s lawyers argue that Besanko “did not adequately deal with the improbability that there was a widespread conspiracy to conceal the truth concerning the deaths of [the two men at Whiskey 108] ... in the official reporting of the mission”.

They submitted that Besanko “did not ... explain how a large number of SASR operators must have known about the executions [on the version of the newspapers] and did not report them or do anything about them”.

Roberts-Smith’s lawyers also argue the former soldier was denied procedural fairness because Besanko did not require the “rookie” soldier, Person 4, to give evidence at the trial about what happened at Whiskey 108, which meant Roberts-Smith could not “confront” Person 4 via cross-examination by his barristers.

It was also an error for Besanko to find that Roberts-Smith’s witnesses “were unreliable about all matters concerning” the Whiskey 108 mission because they were “unreliable about some specific matters”, his lawyers argue.

(Roberts-Smith launches appeal against historic defamation loss)

本案背後金主損失大, 連對家的律師費涉及二、三千萬, 所以有點像交通意外的索償, 是保險公司在對壘, 司機只是傀儡。七台老闆理應放棄了Roberts-Smith, 他的剩餘價值已低到不得了。Damage is done. Roberts-Smith is done. 

有同學說這本書的情節可以拍電影, 不成喇, 票房一定慘淡收場, 只有Rambo、戰狼之類打不死的超現實英雄才能煽情, 欺凌弱小的大英雄只會使國人蒙羞, 誰愛用放大鏡查看自己臉上的瘡疤? Crossing The Line並不暢銷, 不是很多人熱切地盼望知道真相的。

早兩篇有留言問Brereton Report指有39名阿富汗人非法被殺, 他們會否獲賠償? 這份是官方委派的偵查報告, 結論基本上是官方立場, 所以有得賠, 但應該不是所有人, 塔利班被殺不會有得賠, 違反日內瓦協定處理戰俘屬戰爭罪行, 應該以刑事程序處理而終結。被殺害的平民一定有得賠, 但現在阿富汗在塔利班控制下, 賠償的進展一定會停滯不前, 大部份會不了了之, 澳洲政府會蒙混過去。欲知事後如何, 有待上訴結果才能分解。