Court case

[stinger]

I'll autograph it for you.

Can I have one too?

Of course Joff, but you have to provide the photo yourself, I don't carry them around with me.

Just to help out, I'm Brad Pitt's body double.

Stop calling me a racist or i will say FFS and all over you

Oh BTW interesting that the idiot stinger thinks I read his posts when it has been yours I have been reading (I skimmed his pathetci drivvel in your quote).

the man is truly a psychotic fool. BTW wouldn't be too worried about his intimidation and threats. I have read the PM's between him and Milton66 and saw the internet bully's bluff well and truly called

In fact he s.hit himself. Was hilarious.

you still peddling that crap....it's complete bulls***.....the dipstick gave me a phone number to ring...i don't ring arseholes who threaten my family..i report them to the police...as i did in that case...end of story....s*** myself.....hardly...i'm not a you or g o or plugger for that matter who s*** himself and didn't turn up to the last saints function, even though he won tickets....you are a mob of internet wanna bee heroes...nobodies...

of course you read my posts

everybody knows that...

[ace]

This is what happens when you get involved with an Essendon reject who gets involved with a filths rejects X.

[Richter]

It is a fact that the majority of rapists are NOT brought to justice. That has been well established. Why are they not? IMO there is clearly a systemac bias against women who are sexually assaulted. By taking that viewpoint it is only logical to say that the systemic bias must be made up of individual incorrect verdicts.

I understand this, but the facts are, unless you want us to throw out our system of justice and just lynch accused rapists, we have to use the system of law in our land.

And regardless of majority cases, this is an individual case, where all the evidence presented to the court was tested and found wanting.

Lovett has alway had the presumption of innocence and has now had that confirmed by a court of law.

I'm sorry that by saying that I am not going along with the prevailing political patriarchy. You can call that ignorant if you like, but I prefer to think of it as an avowedly feminist critique of the status quo which holds some merit.

I am sure the sisters fell gratified by your support, however, and even if i support that view, Lovett is entitled, under our laws, to his day in court, to have a presumption of innocence, and to have a jury of peers arrive at a verdict after hearing all the presented evidence.

you and the sisters can have an opinion, but unless you want to overthrow the government, change the presumption of innocence, and make up admissable evidence - just like the Guildford 4 or Birm 6, I think we all should live under the Australian system of law, not some sort of totalitarian star chamber or lynch mob mentality.

Yes, we do have to use the law of the land - which by the way is NOT set in stone. Australia does not have a constitution (which you well know!), and there is one particular way in which laws can and are changed - without resorting to lynching, totalitarian rule, or other such actions. They are called acts of parliament.

I accept that what I am saying is at odds with the current system. I'd like to see the current system changed. There is nowhere near enough political pressure applied to making this happen.

This country has come a long way in terms of race relations and gender equality. IMO it has some way to go. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a member of any political pressure group - perhaps I ought to be. I am aware both through personal and professional means of many victims of sexually based crimes and in the vast majority of cases there has been no prosecution of the perpetrators. I have no specific solution to apply, but I know a social problem when I see one. And in this case I know an injustice when I see one.

This case has both race and gender issues, but IMO the race issue is not as relevant. Fully understand that others may not view it the same way.

[Lennon]

I am sure the sisters fell gratified by your support

you and the sisters can have an opinion

Hahahahahaha, oh, you just revealed yourself.

By the way, a Feminist viewpoint is simply viewing society through the lens of the 'other' - whatever marginalised group that may be. Not necessarily women, although it can be as they have been oppressed in most societies throughout history.

A Feminist viewpoint is also used to talk about those people in China who lost their homes and livelihoods due to that epic-seized dam they built for the good of the nation. African slaves. Etc. You are confusing it with first and second wave feminism. Not the same thing.

Richter and the sisters can have their opinion, can they? Magnanimous of you.

Pretty funny that you go on about Lovett's Indigenous heritage, accusing others of racism when no mention of his race had been made, insisting that it was the subtext of other's posts... and so blithely dismiss a gaping hole in the legal system that means many women are the victims of sexual assault with no repercussions for their assaulter.

We should all just be thankful for our legal system! Yes, rape is traumatic, but geez... don't whinge about, alright? Don't highlight any problem, or it means you want to lynch someone!

And then you bring up the sisterhood in a derogatory way... implying that anyone largely concerned by this is just a bra-burning man-hater.



Maybe I'm being unfair - who knows, it's the internet. I don't have the solution to any problem in our legal system.

But I do think it's a bit silly to say, "Well, it's better than other models so we'll just put up with the problems it brings." Surely it is worth discussing, goddammit.

[Richter]

I am sure the sisters fell gratified by your support

you and the sisters can have an opinion

Hahahahahaha, oh, you just revealed yourself.

By the way, a Feminist viewpoint is simply viewing society through the lens of the 'other' - whatever marginalised group that may be. Not necessarily women, although it can be as they have been oppressed in most societies throughout history.

A Feminist viewpoint is also used to talk about those people in China who lost their homes and livelihoods due to that epic-seized dam they built for the good of the nation. African slaves. Etc. You are confusing it with first and second wave feminism. Not the same thing.

Richter and the sisters can have their opinion, can they? Magnanimous of you.

Pretty funny that you go on about Lovett's Indigenous heritage, accusing others of racism when no mention of his race had been made, insisting that it was the subtext of other's posts... and so blithely dismiss a gaping hole in the legal system that means many women are the victims of sexual assault with no repercussions for their assaulter.

We should all just be thankful for our legal system! Yes, rape is traumatic, but geez... don't whinge about, alright? Don't highlight any problem, or it means you want to lynch someone!

And then you bring up the sisterhood in a derogatory way... implying that anyone largely concerned by this is just a bra-burning man-hater.



Maybe I'm being unfair - who knows, it's the internet. I don't have the solution to any problem in our legal system.

But I do think it's a bit silly to say, "Well, it's better than other models so we'll just put up with the problems it brings." Surely it is worth discussing, goddammit.

I think probably you are being unfair Lennon - I took JB's comment to be a lighthearted joke.... however there is some truth, albeit unintentional, in the words that he uses.

After all, every assaulted woman is someone's sister..... both my wife's and my mother's sister have been sexually assaulted.... in neither case were the assailants brought to justice..... in both cases it has scarred them - in one it was the main predisposing reason behind serious mental breakdown, alcoholism and ongoing family discord....

I'm quite sure that the majority of posters on this site would have a relative or friend have a similar situation. Perhaps it is time that people woke up to themselves.....

[MCG-Unit]

Apparantly Lovett had sex with another woman after the alleged incident and according to the herald sun.

Obviously he was hurt at the eligations.

I don't know what an "Eligation" is, so I am assuming you are referring to allegations.

My question is, "How long do you expect him to be celibate?"

Seeing that it was his defense that he felt hurt and upset by the way he was being treated by those at the apartment would think that finding another woman and having sex with her would be the last thing on his mind.

But who am I, would think this information should have been given to the jury though.

Anyway he has been found not guilty so good luck to him

Oh so sorry about spelling mistake should I be banned

Try answering the question.

I thought the poster did answer your question - in the first paragraph.

Notice you deleted the 'All the best Andrew', or 'best wishes Andrew' from your sig

[stinger]

I am sure the sisters fell gratified by your support

you and the sisters can have an opinion

Hahahahahaha, oh, you just revealed yourself.

By the way, a Feminist viewpoint is simply viewing society through the lens of the 'other' - whatever marginalised group that may be. Not necessarily women, although it can be as they have been oppressed in most societies throughout history.

A Feminist viewpoint is also used to talk about those people in China who lost their homes and livelihoods due to that epic-seized dam they built for the good of the nation. African slaves. Etc. You are confusing it with first and second wave feminism. Not the same thing.

Richter and the sisters can have their opinion, can they? Magnanimous of you.

Pretty funny that you go on about Lovett's Indigenous heritage, accusing others of racism when no mention of his race had been made, insisting that it was the subtext of other's posts... and so blithely dismiss a gaping hole in the legal system that means many women are the victims of sexual assault with no repercussions for their assaulter.

We should all just be thankful for our legal system! Yes, rape is traumatic, but geez... don't whinge about, alright? Don't highlight any problem, or it means you want to lynch someone!

And then you bring up the sisterhood in a derogatory way... implying that anyone largely concerned by this is just a bra-burning man-hater.



Maybe I'm being unfair - who knows, it's the internet. I don't have the solution to any problem in our legal system.

But I do think it's a bit silly to say, "Well, it's better than other models so we'll just put up with the problems it brings." Surely it is worth discussing, goddammit.

good post...as usual...you have his number.....same as grumpy one..aafaic..


.i too, never mentioned colour....never entered my head actually......dealt with many sex offenders over the years...majority of them white anglo saxons.....a sexual predator is a sexual predator ...never change their spots...whatever colour they are....

i simply expressed my view...got attacked personally as usual.....have a look at that nerd g o's first post...told my views were churlish and that by expressing them i was engaging in a low act ffs....


yeah, that would be right... he'd know...

[Lennon]

I think probably you are being unfair Lennon - I took JB's comment to be a lighthearted joke....

A joke - by George, that's fine. A lively sort of lark.


All right. I'm overcaffeinated and should probably leave this thread alone.


And if perchance I have offended, think but this and all is mended: < insert whatever you wish to think or write here />

[dragit]

...dealt with many sex offenders over the years

You keep bandying these terms around,
What exactly is your role in the Australian Legal System?

[Dis Believer]

I don't think anyone will find that our lrgal system is deliberately set up to let rapists walk free as part of some mysogynistic conspiracy, however it is fair to say that the type of case our system struggles with the most is the one based on one person's word against another. It is probably reasonable to estimate that a large majority of rape cases are exactly that type of scenario.

And the fact that our system is based on acts of parliament means that any government with a large enough majority is capable of introducing laws based on their prevaling idealogy - not an idea that fills me with joy (example, extreme feminism and family law, or extreme conservatism and industrial relations law).

[plugger66]

I'll autograph it for you.

Can I have one too?

Of course Joff, but you have to provide the photo yourself, I don't carry them around with me.

Just to help out, I'm Brad Pitt's body double.

Stop calling me a racist or i will say FFS and all over you

Oh BTW interesting that the idiot stinger thinks I read his posts when it has been yours I have been reading (I skimmed his pathetci drivvel in your quote).

the man is truly a psychotic fool. BTW wouldn't be too worried about his intimidation and threats. I have read the PM's between him and Milton66 and saw the internet bully's bluff well and truly called

In fact he s.hit himself. Was hilarious.

you still peddling that crap....it's complete bulls***.....the dipstick gave me a phone number to ring...i don't ring arseholes who threaten my family..i report them to the police...as i did in that case...end of story....s*** myself.....hardly...i'm not a you or g o or plugger for that matter who s*** himself and didn't turn up to the last saints function, even though he won tickets....you are a mob of internet wanna bee heroes...nobodies...

of course you read my posts

everybody knows that...

Scared of you. Not likely. Had something else on that day. i am scared of your wife though. She married you so that scares me.

[stinger]

...dealt with many sex offenders over the years

You keep bandying these terms around,
What exactly is your role in the Australian Legal System?

none of your business actually.....you can take my word for it...or not....i don't care...there are too many posters on here who would do me a mischieve if they could...and knowing who i am ..or what i do... would help them achieve their objective.... but for your information these days i deal with victims of abuse more often than actual perpetrators...pm me if you like....

[GrumpyOne]

Apparantly Lovett had sex with another woman after the alleged incident and according to the herald sun.

Obviously he was hurt at the eligations.

I don't know what an "Eligation" is, so I am assuming you are referring to allegations.

My question is, "How long do you expect him to be celibate?"

Seeing that it was his defense that he felt hurt and upset by the way he was being treated by those at the apartment would think that finding another woman and having sex with her would be the last thing on his mind.

But who am I, would think this information should have been given to the jury though.

Anyway he has been found not guilty so good luck to him

Oh so sorry about spelling mistake should I be banned

Try answering the question.

I thought the poster did answer your question - in the first paragraph.

Notice you deleted the 'All the best Andrew', or 'best wishes Andrew' from your sig

No he didn't.

And I did. So?

[Richter]

Not sure GO, but it's this article that I think the poster is referring to....

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-n ... 6101400291

During the trial, Mr Tovey had taken exception to evidence about Lovett's apparent "degree of hurt'' after the model accused him of rape.

Mr Tovey said Lovett rang a second woman after he was hounded by St Kilda players at Gram's Port Melbourne apartment in the wake of the sex allegations.

"The reality of the situation is that on arriving home that night Mr Lovett rang (the other woman), she came around, spent the night with him,'' Mr Tovey told Judge Meryl Sexton.

"Had sex with him, and was seen in the lift by (St Kilda football manager) Greg Hutchison around 5am when Andrew Lovett had asked for extra time before Greg Hutchison came up to see him.''
Mr Tovey said that set of circumstances was "wholly inconsistent'' with evidence suggesting Lovett was hurt and pained over the rape allegations.

Defence counsel David Grace, QC, argued the evidence should not be put before the jury because it would amount to a miscarriage of justice.

"It introduces an entirely prejudicial, or potentially prejudicial episode, where the explanation might simply be that he needed comfort,'' Mr Grace told the judge.

The jury was never told about Lovett's sexual liaison with the second woman because Mr Tovey withdrew his application to have the evidence heard.

Judge Sexton indicated she would have been unlikely to have allowed the evidence in.

So, the answer to your question of "how long should he remain celibate for" is something along the lines of "at least as long as it might take to pull up his flies".

Now, each to their own, but having sex with another person within a few hours at most after having sex with and having been accused of rape by someone else in front of your workmates.... hmmm... makes you wonder what sort of a person does that..... one who views women as objects for his own gratification and not a lot else?....

[Moods]

Not sure GO, but it's this article that I think the poster is referring to....

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-n ... 6101400291

During the trial, Mr Tovey had taken exception to evidence about Lovett's apparent "degree of hurt'' after the model accused him of rape.

Mr Tovey said Lovett rang a second woman after he was hounded by St Kilda players at Gram's Port Melbourne apartment in the wake of the sex allegations.

"The reality of the situation is that on arriving home that night Mr Lovett rang (the other woman), she came around, spent the night with him,'' Mr Tovey told Judge Meryl Sexton.

"Had sex with him, and was seen in the lift by (St Kilda football manager) Greg Hutchison around 5am when Andrew Lovett had asked for extra time before Greg Hutchison came up to see him.''
Mr Tovey said that set of circumstances was "wholly inconsistent'' with evidence suggesting Lovett was hurt and pained over the rape allegations.

Defence counsel David Grace, QC, argued the evidence should not be put before the jury because it would amount to a miscarriage of justice.

"It introduces an entirely prejudicial, or potentially prejudicial episode, where the explanation might simply be that he needed comfort,'' Mr Grace told the judge.

The jury was never told about Lovett's sexual liaison with the second woman because Mr Tovey withdrew his application to have the evidence heard.

Judge Sexton indicated she would have been unlikely to have allowed the evidence in.

So, the answer to your question of "how long should he remain celibate for" is something along the lines of "at least as long as it might take to pull up his flies".

Now, each to their own, but having sex with another person within a few hours at most after having sex with and having been accused of rape by someone else in front of your workmates.... hmmm... makes you wonder what sort of a person does that..... one who views women as objects for his own gratification and not a lot else?....

Can't help but agree. The judge reckons it would be prejudicial - bloody oath it would be. It would have told the jury a lot about his state of mind in the surrounding hours AFTER the event. What human calls up another human for the purpose of sex only hours after being accused of rape?:shock:

The judge reckons he may well have needed comfort. Give me a break

[The OtherThommo]

It is a fact that the majority of rapists are NOT brought to justice. That has been well established. Why are they not? IMO there is clearly a systemac bias against women who are sexually assaulted. By taking that viewpoint it is only logical to say that the systemic bias must be made up of individual incorrect verdicts.

I understand this, but the facts are, unless you want us to throw out our system of justice and just lynch accused rapists, we have to use the system of law in our land.

And regardless of majority cases, this is an individual case, where all the evidence presented to the court was tested and found wanting.

Lovett has alway had the presumption of innocence and has now had that confirmed by a court of law.

I'm sorry that by saying that I am not going along with the prevailing political patriarchy. You can call that ignorant if you like, but I prefer to think of it as an avowedly feminist critique of the status quo which holds some merit.

I am sure the sisters fell gratified by your support, however, and even if i support that view, Lovett is entitled, under our laws, to his day in court, to have a presumption of innocence, and to have a jury of peers arrive at a verdict after hearing all the presented evidence.

you and the sisters can have an opinion, but unless you want to overthrow the government, change the presumption of innocence, and make up admissable evidence - just like the Guildford 4 or Birm 6, I think we all should live under the Australian system of law, not some sort of totalitarian star chamber or lynch mob mentality.

Yes, we do have to use the law of the land - which by the way is NOT set in stone. Australia does not have a constitution (which you well know!), and there is one particular way in which laws can and are changed - without resorting to lynching, totalitarian rule, or other such actions. They are called acts of parliament.

I accept that what I am saying is at odds with the current system. I'd like to see the current system changed. There is nowhere near enough political pressure applied to making this happen.

This country has come a long way in terms of race relations and gender equality. IMO it has some way to go. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a member of any political pressure group - perhaps I ought to be. I am aware both through personal and professional means of many victims of sexually based crimes and in the vast majority of cases there has been no prosecution of the perpetrators. I have no specific solution to apply, but I know a social problem when I see one. And in this case I know an injustice when I see one.

This case has both race and gender issues, but IMO the race issue is not as relevant. Fully understand that others may not view it the same way.

Jamie Ramage's recent release after serving <10 years for killing his wife Julie highlights how the law does change, as you say Richter. That case was the catalyst for parliament to change the law and remove the defence of provocation that was available when Ramage was tried. I still find it difficult to comprehend how the defence managed to have the jury accept that Ramage was provoked, but the law itself was a serious ass.

I'm just not sure what modification(s) could be made on the basis of the Lovett case. When one considers the testimony re the girl's state before, during (between the 2 events that led to the separate charges) and after, I struggle to see how anybody could conclude she was able to consent to satisy the 'free agreement' part of the law. The jury seemed to have a got to the point where only being in a coma before, during and after would constitute being sufficiently incapacitated to ensure consent was not freely given.

Way too many juries seem to think 'beyond reasonable doubt' means 'no doubt, whatsoever'.

Perhaps, should the girl in the Lovett case have sufficient means, she might seek redress through a civil action. 'On the balance of probablilities', rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt', and more victim friendly evidence admissibility criteria might offer some justice.

I also believe the inquisatorial justice system practiced in many places (e.g. France), rather than the adversarial system of most Anglo based countries, might well offer a better route to justice in cases such as the one under discussion. Inquisatorial systems have their critics, but they do seem to be more designed to get to the truth.

[mullet]

Not sure GO, but it's this article that I think the poster is referring to....

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-n ... 6101400291

During the trial, Mr Tovey had taken exception to evidence about Lovett's apparent "degree of hurt'' after the model accused him of rape.

Mr Tovey said Lovett rang a second woman after he was hounded by St Kilda players at Gram's Port Melbourne apartment in the wake of the sex allegations.

"The reality of the situation is that on arriving home that night Mr Lovett rang (the other woman), she came around, spent the night with him,'' Mr Tovey told Judge Meryl Sexton.

"Had sex with him, and was seen in the lift by (St Kilda football manager) Greg Hutchison around 5am when Andrew Lovett had asked for extra time before Greg Hutchison came up to see him.''
Mr Tovey said that set of circumstances was "wholly inconsistent'' with evidence suggesting Lovett was hurt and pained over the rape allegations.

Defence counsel David Grace, QC, argued the evidence should not be put before the jury because it would amount to a miscarriage of justice.

"It introduces an entirely prejudicial, or potentially prejudicial episode, where the explanation might simply be that he needed comfort,'' Mr Grace told the judge.

The jury was never told about Lovett's sexual liaison with the second woman because Mr Tovey withdrew his application to have the evidence heard.

Judge Sexton indicated she would have been unlikely to have allowed the evidence in.

So, the answer to your question of "how long should he remain celibate for" is something along the lines of "at least as long as it might take to pull up his flies".

Now, each to their own, but having sex with another person within a few hours at most after having sex with and having been accused of rape by someone else in front of your workmates.... hmmm... makes you wonder what sort of a person does that..... one who views women as objects for his own gratification and not a lot else?....

You are correct that is exactly the article I was referring to. I found it rather distasteful that he would do this, but as I said who am I. I would have thought that those on the jury would have found this interesting considering Lovett was supposedly hurt and upset at the accusations. Not hurt and upset enough to be intimate a few hours later. The girl was leaving as the Stkilda representative was turning up

Anyway its all irrelevant now, he is innocent according to the courts so I accept that, not that my opinion really matters to Mr Lovett.

[joffaboy]

you still peddling that crap....it's complete bulls***.....the dipstick gave me a phone number to ring...i don't ring arseholes who threaten my family..i report them to the police...as i did in that case...end of story....s*** myself.....hardly...i'm not a you or g o or plugger for that matter who s*** himself and didn't turn up to the last saints function, even though he won tickets....you are a mob of internet wanna bee heroes...nobodies...

of course you read my posts

everybody knows that...

You do know that I know the truth you stupid fool.

You S.HIT yourself youliar.

As for ringing the police, what a load of bollocks.

You threatened milton - he called your bluff - you S.HIT YOURSELF and ran a mile.

lolololololol - I still laugh at the PM's milton sent me.

Showed you up for the bully coward you are.

I will continue to bring it up to make sure everyone here knows that you are nothing but bluster.

And no I dont read your purile posts, but considering you directed this directly at me, I will respond.

Please dont respnd to me again, I dont want to converse with lying cowards.

[plugger66]

you still peddling that crap....it's complete bulls***.....the dipstick gave me a phone number to ring...i don't ring arseholes who threaten my family..i report them to the police...as i did in that case...end of story....s*** myself.....hardly...i'm not a you or g o or plugger for that matter who s*** himself and didn't turn up to the last saints function, even though he won tickets....you are a mob of internet wanna bee heroes...nobodies...

of course you read my posts

everybody knows that...

You do know that I know the truth you stupid fool.

You S.HIT yourself youliar.

As for ringing the police, what a load of bollocks.

You threatened milton - he called your bluff - you S.HIT YOURSELF and ran a mile.

lolololololol - I still laugh at the PM's milton sent me.

Showed you up for the bully coward you are.

I will continue to bring it up to make sure everyone here knows that you are nothing but bluster.

And no I dont read your purile posts, but considering you directed this directly at me, I will respond.

Please dont respnd to me again, I dont want to converse with lying cowards.

How did I get involved in this?

[To the top]

The prosecution case was that Lovett had raped the woman complainant.

This is what the jury had to deliver a verdict on.

No other matter is relevant.

If he expressed remorse that such an allegation had been made against him then that is his claim.

Where is the link between remorse and living your life like an abstaining hermit?

In regards the allegation that Lovett had raped the woman complainant, the jury has found him not guilty on all counts.

Lovett pleaded not guilty.

He had the right of the presumption of innocence - and this presumption and the jury decision has been compromised by the Murdoch media, typically looking for a headline to sell its disgraced garbage.

And then you read what is written on sites such as this - the uneducated telling their fellow uneducated what they do not know.

I would like to see Newscorp charged with attempting to bring the legal system into dis-repute by inflaming public opinion contrary to the decision of the Court - and for Lovett to take action against them for libel.

All Newscorp does is feed the uneducated, not worrying about the individuals concerned and as we see with their illegal activities in the UK - and, no doubt, elsewhere.

I did put that St Kilda were on dangerous ground in terminating Lovett's contract and should have supported him until the (arguementally principal to his dismissal from St Kilda) charges had been tested in a Court of Law.

I still think that St Kilda are on dangerous ground.

[To the top]

The prosecution case was that Lovett had raped the woman complainant.

This is what the jury had to deliver a verdict on.

No other matter is relevant.

If he expressed remorse that such an allegation had been made against him then that is his claim.

Where is the link between remorse and living your life like an abstaining hermit?

In regards the allegation that Lovett had raped the woman complainant, the jury has found him not guilty on all counts.

Lovett pleaded not guilty.

He had the right of the presumption of innocence - and this presumption and the jury decision has been compromised by the Murdoch media, typically looking for a headline to sell its disgraced garbage.

And then you read what is written on sites such as this - the uneducated telling their fellow uneducated what they do not know.

I would like to see Newscorp charged with attempting to bring the legal system into dis-repute by inflaming public opinion contrary to the decision of the Court - and for Lovett to take action against them for libel.

All Newscorp does is feed the uneducated, not worrying about the individuals concerned and as we see with their illegal activities in the UK - and, no doubt, elsewhere.

I did put that St Kilda were on dangerous ground in terminating Lovett's contract and should have supported him until the (arguementally principal to his dismissal from St Kilda) charges had been tested in a Court of Law.

I still think that St Kilda are on dangerous ground.

[bobmurray]

The prosecution case was that Lovett had raped the woman complainant.

This is what the jury had to deliver a verdict on.

No other matter is relevant.

If he expressed remorse that such an allegation had been made against him then that is his claim.

Where is the link between remorse and living your life like an abstaining hermit?

In regards the allegation that Lovett had raped the woman complainant, the jury has found him not guilty on all counts.

Lovett pleaded not guilty.

He had the right of the presumption of innocence - and this presumption and the jury decision has been compromised by the Murdoch media, typically looking for a headline to sell its disgraced garbage.

And then you read what is written on sites such as this - the uneducated telling their fellow uneducated what they do not know.

I would like to see Newscorp charged with attempting to bring the legal system into dis-repute by inflaming public opinion contrary to the decision of the Court - and for Lovett to take action against them for libel.

All Newscorp does is feed the uneducated, not worrying about the individuals concerned and as we see with their illegal activities in the UK - and, no doubt, elsewhere.

I did put that St Kilda were on dangerous ground in terminating Lovett's contract and should have supported him until the (arguementally principal to his dismissal from St Kilda) charges had been tested in a Court of Law.

I still think that St Kilda are on dangerous ground.

read the same both times i read it......thats 10 minutes i wont get back....

[jays]

wonder if he will play afl again

[Moods]

The prosecution case was that Lovett had raped the woman complainant.

This is what the jury had to deliver a verdict on.

No other matter is relevant.

If he expressed remorse that such an allegation had been made against him then that is his claim.

Where is the link between remorse and living your life like an abstaining hermit?

In regards the allegation that Lovett had raped the woman complainant, the jury has found him not guilty on all counts.

Lovett pleaded not guilty.

He had the right of the presumption of innocence - and this presumption and the jury decision has been compromised by the Murdoch media, typically looking for a headline to sell its disgraced garbage.

And then you read what is written on sites such as this - the uneducated telling their fellow uneducated what they do not know.

I would like to see Newscorp charged with attempting to bring the legal system into dis-repute by inflaming public opinion contrary to the decision of the Court - and for Lovett to take action against them for libel.

All Newscorp does is feed the uneducated, not worrying about the individuals concerned and as we see with their illegal activities in the UK - and, no doubt, elsewhere.

I did put that St Kilda were on dangerous ground in terminating Lovett's contract and should have supported him until the (arguementally principal to his dismissal from St Kilda) charges had been tested in a Court of Law.

I still think that St Kilda are on dangerous ground.

It's only libel if it isn't true. No doubt it was true as the prosecution obviously had the evidence ready to go, and Hutchy would have been a credible witness.

It doesn't bother you that b/c it was deemed in admissible in a court of law, that we should never read about it? Happens all the time so I reckon you need to get your facts straight.

How on earth are the saints on dangerous ground? They made it clear that their termination of Lovett had nothing to do with the pending charges, but OTHER behaviour that was going on. Whether you or I believe that was the real reason is immaterial, that was what they said, it was accepted and Lovett was paid out. That little saga is over! Very very smart by the saints for this very reason. If he was found not guilty as he has been, then how would we get rid of him. We would have had to keep him on until the end of his contract. That would have been great wouldn't it?

[saints66]

P



FOOTBALLER Andrew Lovett's ex-girlfriend claims she feared she would die as he held her hostage and bashed her.


Ms Watson told the Herald Sun Lovett bombarded her with 180 text messages for two months after their tumultuous breakup on February 4 last year.

In one, he allegedly said he was a "special person" who "could probably get away with murder".


pretty true...what he said....

Awww Stinger, that's low even for you.

You are reporting hearsay on what he allegedly said and implying that he did in fact "get away with murder" in regard to this case.

The verdict was "Not Guilty"; accept it and move on, and don't muddy the waters with your churlish bias.

and you know where you can go creep.....not guilty has never meant innocent ....and i will never regard f****** a drunk girl as okay....the guys an animal....

If there is any problems with the Australian Justice System, it is because creeps like you inhabit it.

Accept the verdict. We have got past vigilante's stringing up the nearest black man in this country.

Well, some of us have.....

don't bring race into it lowlife ....f****** a drunk girl is a low act...whether you are black white or poka- dotted, clown....you have been defending this creep right from the start ..but we know your history don't we...

accept the verdict.????..not on your nellie...and i hope the dpp don't either....that's what appeal courts are for...or are you going to insult them and call them racist also...moron....

The prosecution has no right of appeal against a not guilty verdict, in Victoria. They only have the right to appeal against the sentence in a guilty result. It is called the principle of double jeopardy.