So if your blood alcohol reading is around 0.15 then you stink. Yep makes as much sense as anyone here believing you know anything about the law.stinger wrote:the only thing that stinks here is lovett.....blood alcohol reading of over or around 0.15 says it all really......MC Gusto wrote:Something stinks about this whole thing I reckon Lovett is not guilty and that is based on gut instinct only
Court case
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5062
- Joined: Sun 27 Feb 2005 2:30am
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 125 times
You cannot be serious. The prosecutor led yesterday with Gram being on the balcony with the girl, kissing, and when he realised how drunk she was (e.g.'swaying') he put her on the bed in his room, fully clothed, and retired elsewhere to stack z's, leaving her alone in his room to sleep.MC Gusto wrote:no not suggesting st kilda stinks. the case stinks. i reckon gram stinks too
How in the hell does he 'stink'? If that evidence stands up during the case, he should be seen as a fella who did the right thing, did what any decent bloke would do.
'Stinks'? FFS.
'I have no new illusions, and I have no old illusions' - Vladimir Putin, Geneva, June 2021
22 years ago i dated a lovely girl who, during her house warming party got a bit drunk and went to sleep early while many of us sat on the roof drinking beers.
A few minutes later we heard a loud scream.
another guy had got into her bed and she assumed it was me. Now the lights were off and pretty much it was obvious that the door was closed because I kissed her goodnight and said I'd be there later.
Violence was committed against the guy, my GF at the time was very distraught. I can't comment on her feelings but she was sobbing, distressed and I think disgusted. I felt anger and violence towards the guy and protective and consoling to my GF at the time.
Sex is fun, but has to be consensual. Just because a girl is willing to have sex with one guy does not mean she is consensual with another guy.
Now I am making NO input into this conversation regarding the guilt or innocence of the footballer in question. I am just retelling a story from my youth.
A few minutes later we heard a loud scream.
another guy had got into her bed and she assumed it was me. Now the lights were off and pretty much it was obvious that the door was closed because I kissed her goodnight and said I'd be there later.
Violence was committed against the guy, my GF at the time was very distraught. I can't comment on her feelings but she was sobbing, distressed and I think disgusted. I felt anger and violence towards the guy and protective and consoling to my GF at the time.
Sex is fun, but has to be consensual. Just because a girl is willing to have sex with one guy does not mean she is consensual with another guy.
Now I am making NO input into this conversation regarding the guilt or innocence of the footballer in question. I am just retelling a story from my youth.
Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime
SHUT UP KRIME!
SHUT UP KRIME!
- Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
- MC Gusto
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6076
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 8:29am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 372 times
My comments are not about the law they are about the case and the evidence presented. It stinks. The players never wanted him thereplugger66 wrote:So if your blood alcohol reading is around 0.15 then you stink. Yep makes as much sense as anyone here believing you know anything about the law.stinger wrote:the only thing that stinks here is lovett.....blood alcohol reading of over or around 0.15 says it all really......MC Gusto wrote:Something stinks about this whole thing I reckon Lovett is not guilty and that is based on gut instinct only
#1 Ryder fan
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
I have no clue about the law, and don't pretend to, but...Con Gorozidis wrote:I think he is in trouble.
Isn't he only in trouble if he knew that she knew it wasn't him?
ie. he's allowed to have a try, and if she allows it, he's allowed to proceed. As long as he has no idea the only reason she's allowing it is because she thinks it's someone else?
To simplify - did Lovett know she thought he was Gram? If not, if he just thought he'd got lucky and she was up for it, then as horrible as the whole situation is, I don't think he can be found guilty can he?
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 931
- Joined: Sun 26 Aug 2007 10:06pm
- Location: Perth WA
But what if he is not guilty ?? He sohuld plead whatever he feels he has the best chance of winning. In reality whilst I love the Saints I would hate to think an innocent man was convicted because he felt it would make it easierDr Spaceman wrote:I suppose Lovett could always do the right thing by everyone involved (including the Saints) and simply plead guilty.mr six o'clock wrote:Thanks !Saint Bev wrote:I've heard it starts Monday. 5 players, Gram, Fisher, Blake, Schnider & McQualter + a Saints official, I think.
I just hope it won't effect them too much on game day seeing they may miss training !
:sarcasm:
![Smile :-)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Michele
Goals are dreams with deadlines!!
Goals are dreams with deadlines!!
- Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
Well clearly my :sarcasm: post was based on the premise that he is guilty and would be able to save everyone a lot of grief by putting his hand up.St Michele wrote:But what if he is not guilty ?? He sohuld plead whatever he feels he has the best chance of winning. In reality whilst I love the Saints I would hate to think an innocent man was convicted because he felt it would make it easierDr Spaceman wrote:I suppose Lovett could always do the right thing by everyone involved (including the Saints) and simply plead guilty.mr six o'clock wrote:Â Thanks !ÂSaint Bev wrote:I've heard it starts Monday. Â 5 players, Gram, Fisher, Blake, Schnider & McQualter + a Saints official, I think.
 I just hope it won't effect them too much on game day seeing  they may miss training !
:sarcasm:
I was never suggesting he plead guilty to something he never did.
- starsign
- Club Player
- Posts: 1854
- Joined: Sat 12 Apr 2008 8:45am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 24 times
Woa!Johnny Member wrote:I have no clue about the law, and don't pretend to, but...Con Gorozidis wrote:I think he is in trouble.
Isn't he only in trouble if he knew that she knew it wasn't him?
ie. he's allowed to have a try, and if she allows it, he's allowed to proceed. As long as he has no idea the only reason she's allowing it is because she thinks it's someone else?
To simplify - did Lovett know she thought he was Gram? If not, if he just thought he'd got lucky and she was up for it, then as horrible as the whole situation is, I don't think he can be found guilty can he?
hang on ... He's not allowed to "have a try" as u put it if she's out to it and hasn't consented no matter what ...in my limited knowledge of the law
And being well intoxicated himself is never an accepted excuse
- Enrico_Misso
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11662
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
- Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
- Has thanked: 315 times
- Been thanked: 720 times
Question?
1) Apparently the judge has allowed possible StKilda witnesses 90 minutes notice before they have to appear.
That will allow them to continue training etc. rather than just hanging around while the legal gasbags boost their earnings.
2) The case is expected to go 2-3 weeks
3) We play the GC B@stards on Sat July 30th.
So presumably we will fly up to Brisbane on Friday 29th.
What happens if the case is still going on?
Do we have to send the players up on Friday night disrupting our preparations because of this filthy rapist?
1) Apparently the judge has allowed possible StKilda witnesses 90 minutes notice before they have to appear.
That will allow them to continue training etc. rather than just hanging around while the legal gasbags boost their earnings.
2) The case is expected to go 2-3 weeks
3) We play the GC B@stards on Sat July 30th.
So presumably we will fly up to Brisbane on Friday 29th.
What happens if the case is still going on?
Do we have to send the players up on Friday night disrupting our preparations because of this filthy rapist?
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 2:18am
- Location: Noble Park
I'm not a legal expert. Sounds like she had consensual sex, thinking Lovett was Grammy. That's mistaken identity. Nevertheless he shouldn't have done it. But if she was into it, how would he know she thought he was someone else?
These questions could determine whether Lovett goes to jail or not.
These questions could determine whether Lovett goes to jail or not.
In honour of those who went before, in the dark and desperate years.
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16949
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3602 times
- Been thanked: 2875 times
Did he stop when she said so?I Love Peter Kiel wrote:I'm not a legal expert. Sounds like she had consensual sex, thinking Lovett was Grammy. That's mistaken identity. Nevertheless he shouldn't have done it. But if she was into it, how would he know she thought he was someone else?
These questions could determine whether Lovett goes to jail or not.
Could she actually have consented?
I don't know if he'll actually be found guilty
My own personal opinion is that he's clearly done the wrong thing and he knew it at the time
- GrumpyOne
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8163
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
- Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne
Alleged Enrico, and football is only a game, its not above the law.Enrico_Misso wrote:Question?
1) Apparently the judge has allowed possible StKilda witnesses 90 minutes notice before they have to appear.
That will allow them to continue training etc. rather than just hanging around while the legal gasbags boost their earnings.
2) The case is expected to go 2-3 weeks
3) We play the GC B@stards on Sat July 30th.
So presumably we will fly up to Brisbane on Friday 29th.
What happens if the case is still going on?
Do we have to send the players up on Friday night disrupting our preparations because of this filthy rapist?
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2010 11:34pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
What the hell was he doing in there trying to have it on with Grammy's girl, at what stage does he take responsibility and wasn't there 2 charges.skeptic wrote:Did he stop when she said so?I Love Peter Kiel wrote:I'm not a legal expert. Sounds like she had consensual sex, thinking Lovett was Grammy. That's mistaken identity. Nevertheless he shouldn't have done it. But if she was into it, how would he know she thought he was someone else?
These questions could determine whether Lovett goes to jail or not.
Could she actually have consented?
I don't know if he'll actually be found guilty
My own personal opinion is that he's clearly done the wrong thing and he knew it at the time
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Tue 16 Mar 2004 2:04pm
- Been thanked: 113 times
2 Charges- 1 being digital rape
It sounds like his defense is that she consented because she was under the impression it was Gram and Lovett could not have known that this was the case until after the incident. The major issue would be if she withdrew her consent during the act and he continued, knowing that she was not consenting to sex with him. As there were no others in the room, other posters are correct in that at that point it gets into the 'he said/she said' territory.
It sounds like his defense is that she consented because she was under the impression it was Gram and Lovett could not have known that this was the case until after the incident. The major issue would be if she withdrew her consent during the act and he continued, knowing that she was not consenting to sex with him. As there were no others in the room, other posters are correct in that at that point it gets into the 'he said/she said' territory.
- mbogo
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2499
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:40pm
- Location: Hogwarts
- Been thanked: 32 times
So it would seem that the act in question falls somewhere between "an absolute c***act" - assuming that AL knew the girl probably "only" wanted Gram - to the alleged rape.
Either way, without any other information, I can see why Jason and the others might have become a little agitated by all of this.
Nothing to do with the case but ...
My bet would be that similar events occur every Sat or Fri night across our fair city. A couple of weeks ago I was a bit concerned for a young woman - in her 20s who was being physically carried from a dance venue by two guys in their 30s-40s, I reckon, coz she was so spastic drunk. Then I heard that she could describe her coat and knew at least one of the guys and seemed "reasonably affectionate" towards them. But I was pretty amazed that the bouncers showed zero interest - like it happened every few minutes or something. Was she able to consent being like 0.15% - I don't know ? Equally I do not know the guys were not "gentlemen". It was weird. Young girls are apparently getting more drunk these days than in previous years due to the cocktails and stuff.
Either way, without any other information, I can see why Jason and the others might have become a little agitated by all of this.
Nothing to do with the case but ...
My bet would be that similar events occur every Sat or Fri night across our fair city. A couple of weeks ago I was a bit concerned for a young woman - in her 20s who was being physically carried from a dance venue by two guys in their 30s-40s, I reckon, coz she was so spastic drunk. Then I heard that she could describe her coat and knew at least one of the guys and seemed "reasonably affectionate" towards them. But I was pretty amazed that the bouncers showed zero interest - like it happened every few minutes or something. Was she able to consent being like 0.15% - I don't know ? Equally I do not know the guys were not "gentlemen". It was weird. Young girls are apparently getting more drunk these days than in previous years due to the cocktails and stuff.
This is a team game and there is no room for individuals who think they are above walking through the fire.
- markp
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 15567
- Joined: Mon 26 Mar 2007 4:22pm
- Has thanked: 63 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
I think the major issue will be how drunk she was and appeared to be beforehand (capable of consent), and how she reacted and appeared to all those present immediately afterwards.amusingname wrote:The major issue would be if she withdrew her consent during the act and he continued, knowing that she was not consenting to sex with him. As there were no others in the room, other posters are correct in that at that point it gets into the 'he said/she said' territory.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue 05 Jul 2011 11:56pm
How do you know anyone said stop?skeptic wrote:Did he stop when she said so?I Love Peter Kiel wrote:I'm not a legal expert. Sounds like she had consensual sex, thinking Lovett was Grammy. That's mistaken identity. Nevertheless he shouldn't have done it. But if she was into it, how would he know she thought he was someone else?
These questions could determine whether Lovett goes to jail or not.
Could she actually have consented?
I don't know if he'll actually be found guilty
My own personal opinion is that he's clearly done the wrong thing and he knew it at the time
What happens if it a complete botch and Lovett went into the room to rest/drunken headspin and the woman then lay next to him thinking it was Gram and hopped on?
It could just be a really really really big botch/misunderstanding.
- markp
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 15567
- Joined: Mon 26 Mar 2007 4:22pm
- Has thanked: 63 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
I've seen similar things... you've had a few yourself, but think "should I do/say something?" and turn around and they're gone... had friends be confronted when trying to get their girlfriends home too, and it can lead to agro... you need to keep your wits about you out there, chicks especially.mbogo wrote:So it would seem that the act in question falls somewhere between "an absolute c***act" - assuming that AL knew the girl probably "only" wanted Gram - to the alleged rape.
Either way, without any other information, I can see why Jason and the others might have become a little agitated by all of this.
Nothing to do with the case but ...
My bet would be that similar events occur every Sat or Fri night across our fair city. A couple of weeks ago I was a bit concerned for a young woman - in her 20s who was being physically carried from a dance venue by two guys in their 30s-40s, I reckon, coz she was so spastic drunk. Then I heard that she could describe her coat and knew at least one of the guys and seemed "reasonably affectionate" towards them. But I was pretty amazed that the bouncers showed zero interest - like it happened every few minutes or something. Was she able to consent being like 0.15% - I don't know ? Equally I do not know the guys were not "gentlemen". It was weird. Young girls are apparently getting more drunk these days than in previous years due to the cocktails and stuff.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Tue 16 Mar 2004 2:04pm
- Been thanked: 113 times
markp wrote:I think the major issue will be how drunk she was and appeared to be beforehand (capable of consent), and how she reacted and appeared to all those present immediately afterwards.amusingname wrote:The major issue would be if she withdrew her consent during the act and he continued, knowing that she was not consenting to sex with him. As there were no others in the room, other posters are correct in that at that point it gets into the 'he said/she said' territory.
True, the prosecution will be focusing on whether she was capable to consent.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Mon 13 Sep 2004 3:52pm
- Location: Level 1 Aisle 37 Etihad
[quote="stkildathunda"][quote="Ralphy"]What gets me every time with 7 news is they regard him as ''ex stkilda player and ex essendon player''
no it should be really Ex Essendon Player then ex stkilda Recruit, he never pulled on our jumper nor did he EVER play for us![/quote]
SEN were describing him as that today which was refreshing to hear.[/quote]
Spot on. I get annoyed with the reference to Lovett being a St. KIlda player. The way you have put it is correct. Another chance for the media to blacken St. Kilda's name.
no it should be really Ex Essendon Player then ex stkilda Recruit, he never pulled on our jumper nor did he EVER play for us![/quote]
SEN were describing him as that today which was refreshing to hear.[/quote]
Spot on. I get annoyed with the reference to Lovett being a St. KIlda player. The way you have put it is correct. Another chance for the media to blacken St. Kilda's name.
- Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
Saints Angel wrote:Spot on. I get annoyed with the reference to Lovett being a St. KIlda player. The way you have put it is correct. Another chance for the media to blacken St. Kilda's name.stkildathunda wrote:SEN were describing him as that today which was refreshing to hear.Ralphy wrote:What gets me every time with 7 news is they regard him as ''ex stkilda player and ex essendon player''
no it should be really Ex Essendon Player then ex stkilda Recruit, he never pulled on our jumper nor did he EVER play for us!
In the 1992 AFL Draft, Tim Watson was recruited by the West Coast Eagles.
He never played a game for them.
Has anyone ever heard Watson referred to as an "ex West Coast player"?
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Mad :x](./images/smilies/icon_mad.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue 05 Jul 2011 11:56pm
Tim Watson was never charged with rape either and the circumstances are completely different.Dr Spaceman wrote:Saints Angel wrote:Spot on. I get annoyed with the reference to Lovett being a St. KIlda player. The way you have put it is correct. Another chance for the media to blacken St. Kilda's name.stkildathunda wrote:SEN were describing him as that today which was refreshing to hear.Ralphy wrote:What gets me every time with 7 news is they regard him as ''ex stkilda player and ex essendon player''
no it should be really Ex Essendon Player then ex stkilda Recruit, he never pulled on our jumper nor did he EVER play for us!
In the 1992 AFL Draft, Tim Watson was recruited by the West Coast Eagles.
He never played a game for them.
Has anyone ever heard Watson referred to as an "ex West Coast player"?![]()
![]()