Husband Not Guilty of Hitting Lawyer

"The brother of AFL coach Dean Laidley was provoked..."

What an interesting story -- all kinds of social values wrapped up in one short case.

First, there's the husband. He is "the brother of AFL coach Dean Laidley." Does he have a name of his own? Does this husband exist, aside from his relationship to a football coach? Apparently not...

Inside Cover is a bit more balanced, starting with "the trial of Paul David Laidley". The story, though, is about the lawyer who "landed a speedy acquittal for the..." -- you guessed it -- "for the brother of AFL coach Dean Laidley." After a casual insult to juries -- as though it were the same snout-in-trough set of jurists in each case -- Inside Cover wraps up with a reference to "the Karratha carpenter." So that's what he does when he's not just being "the brother of AFL coach Dean Laidley"!

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Where did this story start?

The case began with "the brother" kicking down the door of his wife's home. Husband and wife had been separated for some time. Separated, as in, living separately, not acting as husband and wife. The wife was in bed with another man. Husband saw this, kicked down the front door to gain entry to his wife's home, forced his way into the bedroom, confronted "the other man".

Kicking down the front door? Forcing his way into the bedroom? Confronting the lover? Is there nothing wrong with all of this?! If it had been a drug-addled teenager forcing his way into the house -- we would have all been up in arms! What is different here?

Well... the husband still owns the wife.

The husband has bought a wife, paid for with a marriage certificate. Sure, the couple have separated. Sure, they live separate lives. But the wife is still the property of the husband... She is not allowed to take a lover, because that will upset the husband. She can't buy her own freedom. Perhaps she can be sold to another man: divorce and re-marriage may allow her to sleep with another man.

Is that really the way that we think? Until I see the husband charged with breaking and entering -- I will assume that society accepts his right of absolute control of the woman who he still owns.

Then there's the lawyer...

Isn't it unfortunate that the naked man in the bed was a lawyer! Anyone else and we may have given him some sympathy. A man kicks down the front door, storms into the bedroom. Is this threatening? Or is it a simple, social visit. No matter who the men were, I would have thought that self-defence would be a good legal defence.

But the lawyer decided to go for what would appear to be, the big lie. "Mr Raphael told the court he suffered more than 10 blows in the minutes-long incident but did not fight back, retaliate or grab Mr Laidley." What, he just stood there and took it?

Well, maybe he did... We have a large man who works only in the office and the bedroom. We have a smaller man who works as a carpenter, who kicks down front doors, who is obviously enraged, who is brother to a football coach. (Just didn't want you to forget that one!) Oh yes, and the lawyer is naked. Who is more likely to want to fight? Who is more likely to have started the fight?

In summary

1. Newspaper reports are written about celebrities. If you can be brother to someone who works in a popular sport, that's good enough to get your story into the paper.
   
2. A wife is owned by her husband. No matter how violent her husband, there is no question but that he is acting entirely within his rights as owner.
   
3. Don't be a lawyer.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com