Are the Bulldogs Guilty?

[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