Are the Bulldogs Guilty?

[silentC]

Well, we will never know. The purpose of this short rant is to object to some statements made by club officials and others since the DPP dropped the case.

Let me just state clearly that the Bulldogs players have not been vindicated, nor have they been proved innocent. What has happened is that the DPP has decided that there is not enough evidence to proceed to trial.

There is a huge difference between this and being proved innocent. We will never know whether or not they are innocent because the police were unable to gather enough evidence to build a case that has enough of a chance of winning to satisfy the DPP, according to whatever measurements they apply. It simply means that anyone who knows anything about the incident has kept their mouths closed.

Sorry, it just annoys me when people in the media put a false spin on things. I'm not saying it should have gone to trial despite the lack of evidence, I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily mean that nothing dodgey went on. They were very, very lucky. I wonder if they will think twice next time?

[DaveInOz]

First thing I would like to say is that they are innocent according to the law, and should have been treated as such all along.
In cases of sexual abuse it seems everyone wants the defendant to prove innocence rather than the prosecutors to prove guilt. The stigma of a sex crime charge can be unbearable, people assume that if you weren't found guilty - then you probably just got away with it, and treat you as if you were guilty.

I believe that it is better a guilty man goes free than an innocent goes to jail.

[silentC]

Dave, you're absolutely right and in the eyes of the law they are all innocent. I wouldn't change that because otherwise the whole legal system falls on it's ear. Trial by media is a whole other issue and I don't particularly like that either.

What I object to is club officials gloating and saying "see, they didn't do anything wrong" when it is obvious from all the fuss both inside the club and out, that something dodgey went on. By all means say that they are innocent (of a crime) until proven guilty (of that crime). We all know what that means. But don't stand up there and tell me that these guys are angels. That's what annoys me.

If they have been vindicated then why is there an ongoing enquiry within the club? If I was releasing a statement, I'd have said "no charges have been laid and so our guys are off the hook in that regard but the Bulldogs will continue to conduct an internal enquiry into this incident and, if necessary, action will be taken by the club. We do not tolerate this kind of behaviour". That would be a lot more palatable than "ha ha, see, our guys never did anything wrong".

[DaveInOz]

You are right, on that night something happened - what it was you and I will probably never know. The only thing we do know is that they broke the player code of conduct and put the club in a bad position
I think you'll find the internal enquiry is not about truth of the allegations but about how they (the players) got in to a position where the allegations could be raised in the first place.

I also agree the club is making a big strech from allegations un-proven to allegations un-founded

[Robert WA]

If the young lady brings a civil action, for damages, as she is threatening, then the standard of proof will be "the balance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".

The speed of the rush to settle the claim/claims may be an indicator of the degree of guilt felt by the blokes concerned.

[bitingmidge]

Where there's smoke?

I do not want to be seen as defending these guys and have avoided informing myself of the "developing situation" where possible...HOWEVER..

The press in this country are without any scruples as long as they have a sniff of "public interest".

I am part of the public, and let's be quite clear, I have NO INTEREST in reading beat ups about what may or MAY not have been done, particularly when the lives and/or careers of high profile persons are in the firing line.

I have never met any of the following people, and have no interest in them however:

I can recall the sordid details of a dubious liason carried out by a high profile footballer a few years ago, reported blow by juicy blow in the press, only for him to clearly prove his innocence of the charge. Morally he had judged poorly, but he was acting in private until the press took hold and DESTROYED the reputation of an INNOCENT (of a crime at least) person.

Last year the Mayor of Maroochy Shire won a civil action against a man accused of stalking her. She was the innocent party in so far as the case was concerned, yet her ..."liaisons" with a number of high profile local identities (used in evidence) were paraded publicly and she suffered enormous damage as a result, she was the victim in this sense, but was torn apart by the press.

Another high profile swimming coach recently discharged for the second time, while the press continue to push the story......

Whatever the "truth" why are these people (reporters) allowed to publish anything before a trial has been concluded?

We have formed opinions on the Bulldogs based on what we have seen and heard. I don't like their attitude...the reality is that I have no idea what their attitude is apart from the body language I have had presented to me in a few seconds of edited television. What has been the attitudes of the persons concerned the rest of the time?

The public has an interest in the truth, but it will only pay for salicious gossip!

The press is comprised of blithering idiots as well!

(Oh no, he goes again!)

P

[journeyman Mick]

"The press is comprised of blithering idiots as well!

(Oh no, he goes again!)

P"

I'm staying quiet! (well about idiots, blithering or otherwise)
I will say though that I have seen the press in action first hand, almost destroying the life of a close friend with salacious rumours and innuendo, which, in the end all came to naught. Charges were dropped because they were ludicrous and totally unfounded. There may or may not be something behind the Bulldogs story. The press know that no matter what the truth is, a sensationalised story will help them to sell advertising space, which is where their real interest lies.

Mick

[DarrylF]

I know two things about this whole sickening mess:

1. The 'Press' are a bunch of pointless hacks, with the occasional gem and more than their fair share of rabid dogs with no scruples and no interest in anything remotely resembling the truth. Amazing how such a small percentage of their combined effort produces benefits of such importance it justifies the existence of a profession that otherwise would have been outlawed decades ago.

2. Footballers - especially the professional breed we seem to be afflicted with in this country - have collectively the lowest average IQ possible while still being considered human. Again, there is the occasional worthwhile individual, but fer chrissake - these people make a living out of beating the crap out of each other and somehow have come to believe they have some sort of value that allows them to behave any way they like.

As far as I'm concerned they can go at each other all they like. Journalists taking footballers down a peg or three is a good thing. I'm just sick to death of hearing about it.

And how on earth did sport reach such importance as to warrant a third to a half of every damn news broadcast anyway?

(if that lot isn't an invitation to an argument, I don't know what is :D)

[Dean]

As a magazine editor/writer myself, I think there are certain facets/publications as part of the collective term "press" that can be relied upon more than others for truthful reporting and information dispersal. Let's not bash them all up :)

[Little Festo]

The Bulldogs:

Salery Cap scandel

Sexual assaul claims last year at Cofffs Harbour

Sexual assault claims this year at Coffs Harbour again

Players bring the game into disrepute - urinating in front of the press and kicking a football at the press - at two different press conferences.

A club in control?? Players who think they are above the law??

Peter

[silentC]

Trouble certainly follows them around. Before the salary cap problems, they had problems with their supporters trying to emulate the English football hooligans of the 80's at the grounds and on their way home.

I feel sorry for the die hard supporters. The Bulldogs have been a great team in the past but lately their reputation has taken a hiding. I don't blame their CEO for trying to put on a positive spin but he could have selected his words a bit better.

Regarding the problems of a free press - can you imagine the alternative? I'd prefer to take it the way it is warts and all and use my own discretion, than to have a state press agency that only tells me what the government wants me to hear.

[jackiew]

One definition of the IQ of a group -

the lowest IQ of any member divided by the size of the group. And that is without adding alcohol. Sadly people in groups do things they wouldn't contemplate individually.

I suspect that we are unlikely to know the real facts because people who work/play together tend to cover up for the behaviour of members of the team. Haven't most of us bent the truth to protect a colleague from the wrath of management, or a sibling from the wrath of a parent. And once you've hidden the truth it takes a lot of bottle to front up and say "I lied", especially if you're going to look bad in public and would be ostracised by the people you work with.

Have a few times been interviewed by reporters from local papers and have been amazed ( and embarassed ) at the printed result which bore no relationship to anything that had been said at the interview. Consequently I view everything I read in the press with a certain amount of suspicion.

[Wongo]

… and there is fire.

They have done something wrong, to what extent we don’t know and is not important now.

To big Willie Mason, quit while you are ahead. It won’t be apology because you don’t deserve one. Guilty or not guilty, someone from the Bulldogs should come out and apologise to their fans and the public for what had happened.

[silentC]

... the printed result which bore no relationship to anything that had been said at the interview ...

I do a bit of work with a journo and he makes his quotes up. I say to him "you can't write that, that's not what the guy said". His reply? "Don't believe everything you read in the papers".

[DanP]

Silent,

Disagree on one point. They are innocent. That is not to say that they did not commit the crime. MANY rapes do not get to court because of a lack of evidence... BUT under the current court system, they are all innocent, whether they did it or not. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. They have not been proven guilty in a court of law and therefore are innocent.

Those who have been wrongly accused will be the first to remind you of this. Also, settling civil matters is no indication of guilt or innocence, it is often a desire to not get into the civil court, where basically anything can be said about any person giving evidence, which for celebs can be very damaging, true or not. Therefore MOST will settle out of court. I think the speed of the civil litigation is more of an indication of truth (or not) of a matter.

Dan

[Bob Willson]

Remember, innocent until proven guilty

Not so, that should be:
In the eyes of the law they are innocent until proven guilty.

This does not make them innocent, just not proven guilty.

[DanP]

Bob,

That's why I said,

"under the current court system, they are all innocent, whether they did it or not"

Only the people there (or is that their, or they're) actually know what happened, therefore I'll assume that no crime happened until it is proved otherwise. Saves me getting sued for defamation.

Dan

[Bob Willson]

Hmm I think we are using the word 'innocent' in various completely different ways here.

1) they didn't do anything wrong and are therefore innocent -- YES, they are then innocent

2) They did do something wrong and were found guilty by a court of law - YES they are then guilty

3) They did do something wrong but were found innocent in a court of law - YES they are guilty. The finding of the court does not change that

4) They did something wrong (and know it) - YES they are guilty

I mean term number three when I say guilty

[echnidna]

As guilt and innocence has not been determined by a Court they are merely PRESUMED INNOCENT. Which might be a long way from innocent

[silentC]

It wasn't really the issue of whether or not they were innocent upon which I was commenting. It was the spin put by the CEO on the dropping of the case that I was complaining about.

Having said that, we all know what "innocent until proven guilty" means. It means that under the legal system in this country, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. You are assumed not to have committed the crime until it is proven otherwise. Those are the rules of engagement. No-one wants that to change.

Let's put legal conventions aside. In reality what it does not mean is that, until you have been convicted of a crime, no crime has been committed. There are many reasons why a case never makes it to trial and the discovery that a suspect could not have committed the crime is only one of them.

[DanP]

My point is, that some people are making the gross assumption that they actually did something wrong. There are two possible scenarios.

1. They actually did what the media say that they did (there's a first for everything) and then they are, as you say, guilty, whether it is found to be so in a court or not.

2. They did not do it and the media have taken the best, most juicy tidbits, true or not, that they can fit into their ten to thirty second grab for the news, then they are innocent.

I was not there and (I assume) neither was any person here that is making a comment. Therefore, not one person who wasn't witness to the events is in any position to make any presumption of guilt.

To say that anyone who knows anything about the incident has kept their mouth closed may also be a very gross assumption. It may very well be the truth, but it may also be that everyone involved EXCEPT the alleged victim has told the truth.

Dan

[silentC]

It's not the media that made the accusations - they were made by the woman in Coffs Harbour and then later by the police.

I'd like to think that the police wouldn't spend 10 weeks investigating something that was nothing more than a media beat up. But then ...

[journeyman Mick]

Ah, but maybe if there wasn't so much media attention the police would not have spent so much time and effort on it. They have a need for good PR as well, not saying this is what drives them but it must influence some decisions.

Mick

[Zed]

my comments are purely to provoke comment not to upset anyone or presume any conditions on any individual or any groups of people :

has anyone thought that perhaps maybe she was a 'slapper'... if so they arn't guilty of anything except poor taste... what was she doing with 6 or 7 drunken meatheads at 3 on the morning by the side of a pool ? maybe she decided she didnt like it after a couple of them had (pardon) a shot at her and decided to cry rape afterwards. maybe she felt demeaned in the morning and decided she felt violated after all and then went to the cops and the hospital while the evidence was fresh (pardon again).

I reckon no-one except the people involved will ever know the real truth. Note I do not condone any sexually abhorrent behaviour. IN this case I feel that everyone is / was / will be wrong.

A sad story altogether.

If the dogs are really into damage control the should sack everyone involved and give some up and comers a chance to redeem the blue and whites so that they can truely say "Thier morals are questionable, therefore we dont want them around our purportedly family club - look we are leading by examople and purging ourselves of this disgusting behaviour, we recommend that these sacked individuals are not given another chance by any other clubs due to the dubious nature of the situation, by this we mean lets clean up our game"

[silentC]

There was an interesting segment on Radio National about it this morning. They had a guest on who says that this kind of activity by a group of males is actually brought on by their desire to 'do it' to each other.

Zed, your question was raised too. Let's assume the woman was a willing participant. Should the 6 blokes have gone ahead, or should there have been a voice inside them saying "I should not be doing this, it is against the code of conduct and is morally wrong". Can you imagine a drunk footballer thinking that way?

[jackiew]

has anyone thought that perhaps maybe she was a 'slapper'


It certainly is more than apparent that the "gentlemen" involved and I use the term gentlemen very losely are themselves 'slappers'. I thought in the 21st century we were going away from the idea that there is one standard of behaviour for men and a totally different one for women!

... and while having sex with multiple partners in quick succession is not a crime ... being forced to have sex with someone you don't want to have sex with most definately is. As one of the news commentaries said ( not exact wording this is from memory ) just because a woman has sex with your mate it doesn't mean that she wants to have sex with you, just because a woman has had sex with you before it doesn't mean she has to have sex with you again ....

Agreed we don't know (and we probably won't ever know) what happened ( and there are usually several versions of "truth" anyway ) but I have to say I wouldn't be too chuffed if a child of mine was looking up to the Bulldogs as their sporting "heroes"

[DanP]

Silent,

You would be amazed at the amount of time we spend investigating matters that we know from day one will go nowhere. In fact, I would say that I spend more of my time investigating things that will never go anywhere than matters that will go to court. AND, having the media involved only makes the matter worse, you really have to do all your dots and crosses then.

Dan

[silentC]

Dan,

I forgot you were in the force. A mate of mine is a Snr Constable in Sydney and I've heard all the stories. Be interesting to see if he knows anything about this one - he often does.

When you're investigating something that you know is not going to go anywhere, do you think it wont because there's nothing to it, or because you'll never get enough to make a case? My mate says he's tired of doing all the running around only to be told by DPP that it wont have any legs in court, so he just has to let it drop. That would be frustrating.

He talks in two 'modes'. When he's being Snr Constable x he goes on about presumption of innocence, rules of evidence, etc. etc. But when he talks as Joe Citizen, it irritates him that he knows a crime has been committed but he can't do anything about it. I just wonder if the detective in charge of that Bulldogs case wasn't letting a little bit of the Joe Citizen slip out the other night.

[DanP]

Whether I'm working or not it pisses me off.

A lot of running around is done chasing statements for things where there is no actual offence. We're not allowed to tell people that though. "Yes sir, I'll take a report that someone gave you a dirty look, would you just come in and make a statement" Whereas we used to say "I'm sorry, but no offence has been committed. There's nothing I can do". Then you run around taking statements off witnesses and interviewing the 'offender', basically wasting your time.

I don't mind chasing up real crime, even if it does fail to get to court. It's the time wasting that I can't stand.

The most frustrating thing is to have all the evidence and to have put in hours and hours of investigation and paperwork to have some magistrate or judge give them the smack fingers treatment.

Dan