that chick was going to have me in year ten but nothing came of it.

Fight you, or root you?

she was going to bash my head in.

Claudine Alami grabbed me in the canteen queue and spat in my face, whlst holding my shirt, that she was gonna squash me like a fly if I didn't stop watching her order her food. She was a big girl tough tomboy.

However, she was not on Australian Story, so please ignore me.

Sorry September.

Well, anyone who'd bash your head in doesn't sound like someone you want to be frinds with.

Urgh. My grammar disease is back.

story

...mummy

I don't think I've heard a better summation of the human condition than "anyone who'd bash your head in doesn't sound like someone you want to be friends with".

Two million psychiatrists (or psychologists, I'm never sure which is which) have just been put out of business.

she definitely a chick i wouldn't want following me home september.

oh yeah, i kinda watched. It was sort of dull and horrific all at the same time.

she never actually threatened me. some other girl came up to me and said, 'i'm going to have you after school. you better fucking be there.' i said ok but inside i was shaking. then she said 'and when i am finished with you sharon anyos is going to punch your fucking head in.' this was at recess. then at lunch time sharon anyos comes up to me and says 'what is this about a fight.' i sat there like a mute and the other girl said 'what fight? i don't know anything about a fight.' then my friend said, 'she said she was going to punch her head in and then you were going to punch her head in.' then sharon anyos said, 'so you want to fight and she doesn't.....ok well you win, that's the rules.' then she left me sitting in my own wee and someone else punched me in the face the next week instead.

a year after that she followed me to my friends. every time i rounded a corner i'd start running. i'd slow down to a walk when i thought she'd still be behind the corner but she must have been running when my back was to her because she kept closing in. it was very scarey i can assure you.

I watched it...and I must commend you on your youthful good looks. She looks at least 48.

scary.

getting bashed for a living can are take the shine off a girl, percy...

ARGHH CAN'T TALK THIS ARVY.

can sure take the shine off a girl...

I've never been in a fight

I'll fix that if you like

she runs up and down hills like anything though.

she punched Sam Newman out on a 'boxing demo 101' segment on the sunday footy show last year. He was ogling her though.

Bloody fucken', September. You tell the other girl to tell Sharon Anyos that if either of them touch you, I'll come down there wif' me belt and give 'em wot for.

opens tinny with teeth

The voiceover presented an opposing point of view a couple of times. But having a voiceover for AS is different in itself. It was more of a documentary than a straight Australian Story.

It looked like an opposing point of view was at least presented in the shape of Alexander Downer?

Ruddock also popped up halfway through.

Sort of. But they usually give another side's view if there is one. I'm thinking of the recent episode where a guy dropped a rock on a car from a bridge and killed the girl and now wanted forgiveness but her family didn't want a bar of it. But yeah it's been getting better recently, less fluff.

Does anyone have a link to this story?

here: http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/shattered/default.htm

Thanks a lot. I'm looking really forward to watching that. The guy doesn't look like the full bag of twisties...

Gotta love that logic.

Thinking of the consequences after event. Regular Rhodes scholar right there.

I just watched it then, and I thought it comes down to two different stories really.

I have no sympathy for the stupid, naive, adrenalin junkie who decided to fight for an organisation with obvious terrorist links. He was a traitor to his own country, which he has every right to be, but he also needed to accept the consequences of these actions.

Unfortunately, the consequences were horrendous, illegal, and in no way just so I guess I do have sympathy for the guy who became part of a perverted justice system, and whose human rights were abused.

In saying that, I was pretty disappointed with what I saw as continued lying regarding his knowledge of his role in Afghanistan. That seems a bit suspicious.

twocents

I caught the tail end of last night's episode, it had the guy from Skunkhour in it. Remember them? When funk was king! I wanted to be cynical but it was really sad.

Who did it? Is the earnest wife to be believed or the crazy uncle right?

What happened with this one? I missed the second part of the story.

He got jailed for life. There was too much evidence showing that he was guilty. His wife and supporters (whom he met post-killings and loaded due to inheritance) seemed to be trying to get him off on a technicality.

His appeal for a re-trial comes up next month I believe...

My gut feeling (and it is exactly that) having watched both episodes is that he didn't kill his parents. His uncle (who seemed like two different blokes after his weight loss and new toupee) just didn't seem credible and seemed to have nagged the DPP into prosecuting Gilham. Highly circumstantial evidence used to convict him so I don't take the view that his supporters are trying to get him off on a technicality - they want to show that there is insufficient evidence to convict. That is different to a technicality, right?

Ah hah, thanks all, though remembered that I can probably stream it on the ABC website (i don't do that much, but should). There was a big article in The Age about this case a couple of years ago so I knew he'd been jailed, I just wasn't aware of the details and whether he was in for a chance of getting off. That Age article made the Uncle out to be a bit of a hero but he seemed a bit irrational to me too when I watched part 1.

Yes, getting off on a technicality means they know you did it but aren't able to convict (e.g. because the evidence of your guilt was illegally obtained). A conviction based on circumstantial evidence alone can often be overturned on appeal, so he may get out unless the prosecution have found more evidence in the meantime.

The jury made the correct decision to convict him based on what I saw on the 2 episodes. The parents and brother (who was supposed to have done it) all had multiple and similar stab wounds, the house was set ablaze to destroy evidence, there was motive for the crime, it was pre-mediatated, none of his relatives believed he was innocent, etc.The real victims (apart from the dead parent are brother) are his kids and his wife who he met well after the fact. ''How could such a caring guy do such a thing?''

I think he did it but I'm surprised that he was convicted.

One of the main arguments was would he have really left his mother to burn and instead chased his brother and stabbed him. Most people, upon entering a house, seeing their mother laying on the ground being covered in what you assume to be petrol and then being set alight would have gone to her rescue and attempted to put out the flames. He wasn't in danger. His brother was smaller than him and he could easily overpower him.

While I think this is logical and I know my first reaction would be to assist her and make sure she was okay, I'm surprised it held up in court.

There was enough reasonable doubt for him to get off. They didn't prove pre-meditation, he said that his brother started the fire, there was no other evidence to convict him and that has been acknowledged.

great ep last night

Pretty inspirational story last night on Australian Hollywood exec Scott Neeson who gave up his lifestyle and job and put all his money into helping the children living on rubbish dumps in Phnom Penh.

but something is seriously wrong with heather graham's face.

but something is seriously wrong with heather graham's face.

Yes, she was never gonna age well but the rest of her looks pretty fine.

Yeah great story last night - enjoyed it a lot.