Not guilty!

[GrumpyOne]

It seems the "innocent man" was protected more than the victim

Alledged victim.

And our law is that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And now that Lovett has been found 'not guilty' does that make his accuser (previously the 'alleged victim') just a 'liar' now?

Her accusations have been 'tested' in court and found 'wanting'.

Should Lovett now sue her for defamation?
Afterall, the only reason he was charged were her allegations, now found to be 'wanting'.
Those allegations have led Lovett to be pilloried, abused and generally despised.

Surely she bears some responsilbility for the shameful way Lovett has been treated as a result of her (and only her) allegations?

And why shouldn't she now be named/shamed for falsely accusing Lovett?
Surely she now deserves to be put under public scrutiny?
Afterall her 'false accusations' have led to Lovett's current predicament.

Of course I don't agree with the above, but isn't it the natural progression to the 'he was found not guilty so he didn't do anything wrong' argument?

Just like OJ was found 'not guilty' and therefore is 'innocent' of killing his wife Nicole and her friend Ronald Goldman.

No.

Legal process has been followed.

Not Guilty is the verdict.

Reasonable doubt is the reason.

That's the end of it.

There were no winners, some lost more than others.

The only implication you can draw is that there is a lot to be said for remaining sober.

[Mr Magic]

Grumps, this case is probably one of the reasons some victims don't bother coming forward with allegations.

The prosecution has to prove the case,
The defense need do nothing other than cast doubt on the victim to gain 'reasonable doubt'.

Why would any 'victim' put themselves in the situation of testifying against her 'alleged attacker' when she knows the defense barristers will try to discredit her in the hopes that will cause juries to have some doubt (reasonable or unreasonable) about her version of the event that took place.
All the while the 'alleged attacker' sits there silent knowing he will hardly ever have to account for his actions.

If I had a daughter in this situation I would advise her to not to lay charges in a she said/he said case.
Without corroboration the law seems 'stacked' in favour of the defense.


BTW, grumps, how do you feel about OJ?
A man also found 'not guilty' by a jury of his peers.
ANd the 'party girl' whose daughter went missing so she went out 'clubbing.
Also found 'not guilty' by a jury of ehr peers.

Personally I believe that there are both innocent victims sitting in jail as well as guilty people walking around free.
Both categpies have been failed by our 'legal system'.


Maybe a 'better' system would compel all alleged victims and alleged perpetrators give evidence at the trial - at least both sides would be heard.

[dragit]

Grumps, this case is probably one of the reasons some victims don't bother coming forward with allegations.
The prosecution has to prove the case,
The defense need do nothing other than cast doubt on the victim to gain 'reasonable doubt'.
Why would any 'victim' put themselves in the situation of testifying against her 'alleged attacker' when she knows the defense barristers will try to discredit her in the hopes that will cause juries to have some doubt (reasonable or unreasonable) about her version of the event that took place.
All the while the 'alleged attacker' sits there silent knowing he will hardly ever have to account for his actions.
If I had a daughter in this situation I would advise her to not to lay charges in a she said/he said case.
Without corroboration the law seems 'stacked' in favour of the defense.
BTW, grumps, how do you feel about OJ?
A man also found 'not guilty' by a jury of his peers.
ANd the 'party girl' whose daughter went missing so she went out 'clubbing.
Also found 'not guilty' by a jury of ehr peers.
Personally I believe that there are both innocent victims sitting in jail as well as guilty people walking around free.
Both categpies have been failed by our 'legal system'.
Maybe a 'better' system would compel all alleged victims and alleged perpetrators give evidence at the trial - at least both sides would be heard.

The Prosecution could have called Lovett to testify, they chose not to for whatever reason, it's not the law stacked in his favour but rather the situation. If something can not be proven then how can an accused be found guilty.
What law change could possibly better distinguish what happened between only 2 people that no-one else was privy too?
The laws are designed to stop people being punished unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has occurred. It is not designed to Jail persons who seem guilty, even if they have prior offenses.
The truth is that we don't know if the alleged victim is an angel or k-duthie the 2nd, we just don't.
We all agree that the circumstances of the case paint a very seedy picture of Lovett, we think he has done the wrong thing, however if it can't be proven then I don't think he should be found guilty.

[GrumpyOne]

Grumps, this case is probably one of the reasons some victims don't bother coming forward with allegations.
The prosecution has to prove the case,
The defense need do nothing other than cast doubt on the victim to gain 'reasonable doubt'.
Why would any 'victim' put themselves in the situation of testifying against her 'alleged attacker' when she knows the defense barristers will try to discredit her in the hopes that will cause juries to have some doubt (reasonable or unreasonable) about her version of the event that took place.
All the while the 'alleged attacker' sits there silent knowing he will hardly ever have to account for his actions.
If I had a daughter in this situation I would advise her to not to lay charges in a she said/he said case.
Without corroboration the law seems 'stacked' in favour of the defense.
BTW, grumps, how do you feel about OJ?
A man also found 'not guilty' by a jury of his peers.
ANd the 'party girl' whose daughter went missing so she went out 'clubbing.
Also found 'not guilty' by a jury of ehr peers.
Personally I believe that there are both innocent victims sitting in jail as well as guilty people walking around free.
Both categpies have been failed by our 'legal system'.
Maybe a 'better' system would compel all alleged victims and alleged perpetrators give evidence at the trial - at least both sides would be heard.

The Prosecution could have called Lovett to testify, they chose not to for whatever reason, it's not the law stacked in his favour but rather the situation. If something can not be proven then how can an accused be found guilty.
What law change could possibly better distinguish what happened between only 2 people that no-one else was privy too?
The laws are designed to stop people being punished unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has occurred. It is not designed to Jail persons who seem guilty, even if they have prior offenses.
The truth is that we don't know if the alleged victim is an angel or k-duthie the 2nd, we just don't.
We all agree that the circumstances of the case paint a very seedy picture of Lovett, we think he has done the wrong thing, however if it can't be proven then I don't think he should be found guilty.

Got to agree.

The system has faults, but its the best we've got.

[Mr Magic]

I don't think the prosecution is able to call the defendant as a witness.
Only the defense can call the defendant to testify.

The prosecution can 'cross-examine' the defendant in the same manner that the defense is able to 'cross-examine' the accuser.

That's my point.

The prosecution has to call the 'alleged victim' otherwise it cannot 'prove' a crime was committed.

The defense can decide whether it suits their case to ahve the defendant testify.

The odds seem 'stacked' in favour of the defense (maybe they should be?)
when it's a she said/he said scenario and there is no physical evidence of a crime.

[NoMore]

The prosecution can't call the defendent so basically when the defendent is guilty he/she doesn't testify so as not to risk having purgery added to the charges.

The court system has always been heavily stacked in favour of the defendent. Can someone clear this up for me. In America does the defendent have to prove there innocense or is it the same here

[dragit]

The prosecution can't call the defendent so basically when the defendent is guilty he/she doesn't testify so as not to risk having purgery added to the charges.

The court system has always been heavily stacked in favour of the defendent. Can someone clear this up for me. In America does the defendent have to prove there innocense or is it the same here

I would much prefer to have to be proven guilty than prove innocence.
If you for example, alleged that I raped you last night, I will find it very hard to prove that I didn't with no alibis...
To kill a mocking bird?

[Mr Magic]

The prosecution can't call the defendent so basically when the defendent is guilty he/she doesn't testify so as not to risk having purgery added to the charges.

The court system has always been heavily stacked in favour of the defendent. Can someone clear this up for me. In America does the defendent have to prove there innocense or is it the same here

I would much prefer to have to be proven guilty than prove innocence.
If you for example, alleged that I raped you last night, I will find it very hard to prove that I didn't with no alibis...
To kill a mocking bird?

I believe it's similar to here.
The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt (according to Law & Order anyway!)

[stinger]

Grumps, this case is probably one of the reasons some victims don't bother coming forward with allegations.

The prosecution has to prove the case,
The defense need do nothing other than cast doubt on the victim to gain 'reasonable doubt'.

Why would any 'victim' put themselves in the situation of testifying against her 'alleged attacker' when she knows the defense barristers will try to discredit her in the hopes that will cause juries to have some doubt (reasonable or unreasonable) about her version of the event that took place.
All the while the 'alleged attacker' sits there silent knowing he will hardly ever have to account for his actions.

If I had a daughter in this situation I would advise her to not to lay charges in a she said/he said case.
Without corroboration the law seems 'stacked' in favour of the defense.


BTW, grumps, how do you feel about OJ?
A man also found 'not guilty' by a jury of his peers.
ANd the 'party girl' whose daughter went missing so she went out 'clubbing.
Also found 'not guilty' by a jury of ehr peers.

Personally I believe that there are both innocent victims sitting in jail as well as guilty people walking around free.
Both categpies have been failed by our 'legal system'.


Maybe a 'better' system would compel all alleged victims and alleged perpetrators give evidence at the trial - at least both sides would be heard.

good ,accurate post...i have referred to those two cases in an earlier post.....i got roundly abused , hope you fair better...

[stinger]

Just goes to show just how easily you can be brought down by the evidence of a drunk.

low below the belt churlish comment, even from you....

[stinger]

It seems the "innocent man" was protected more than the victim

Alledged victim.

And our law is that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And now that Lovett has been found 'not guilty' does that make his accuser (previously the 'alleged victim') just a 'liar' now?

Her accusations have been 'tested' in court and found 'wanting'.

Should Lovett now sue her for defamation?
Afterall, the only reason he was charged were her allegations, now found to be 'wanting'.
Those allegations have led Lovett to be pilloried, abused and generally despised.

Surely she bears some responsilbility for the shameful way Lovett has been treated as a result of her (and only her) allegations?

And why shouldn't she now be named/shamed for falsely accusing Lovett?
Surely she now deserves to be put under public scrutiny?
Afterall her 'false accusations' have led to Lovett's current predicament.

Of course I don't agree with the above, but isn't it the natural progression to the 'he was found not guilty so he didn't do anything wrong' argument?

Just like OJ was found 'not guilty' and therefore is 'innocent' of killing his wife Nicole and her friend Ronald Goldman.

i would expect the woman to institute civil proceedings against lovett ...if he has any brains he will settle...just like milne was forced to....

[Con Gorozidis]

No winners from this. only losers.

if lovett did it - then the justice hasnt been served .

if he didnt do it - he was dragged trhough the wringer for no reason.

either way - the whole thing is just a terrible affair as grumps said. im no wowser and in fact a pretty heavy drinker. but sheesh. if u werent so hammered bad stuff just wouldnt happen. i can vouch for that myself.

[GrumpyOne]

Just goes to show just how easily you can be brought down by the evidence of a drunk.

low below the belt churlish comment, even from you....

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

And on the subject, was she or wasn't she drunk?

[stinger]

The prosecution can't call the defendent so basically when the defendent is guilty he/she doesn't testify so as not to risk having purgery added to the charges.

The court system has always been heavily stacked in favour of the defendent. Can someone clear this up for me. In America does the defendent have to prove there innocense or is it the same here

same...both systems based on the old english common law system of justice....some countries and or /jurisdictions have legislated criminal codes, but basically the same....one state in america, louisiana....has the European system.....inquisitorial....not adversarial....where you have to more or less prove your innocence.....lovett may have come unstuck under such a system


...our system is far from perfect as this case illustrates....

[plugger66]

The prosecution can't call the defendent so basically when the defendent is guilty he/she doesn't testify so as not to risk having purgery added to the charges.

The court system has always been heavily stacked in favour of the defendent. Can someone clear this up for me. In America does the defendent have to prove there innocense or is it the same here

same...both systems based on the old english common law system of justice....some countries and or /jurisdictions have legislated criminal codes, but basically the same....one state in america, louisiana....has the European system.....inquisitorial....not adversarial....where you have to more or less prove your innocence.....lovett may have come unstuck under such a system


...our system is far from perfect as this case illustrates....

Why does this case illustrate that? Because you think he is guilty. Well that is it then open and shut case. The more I read the more it confirms what most know.

[saintspremiers]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... 1i5ju.html

so what is Lovett really guilty of and why did he get sacked??

I assume he pissed off the playing group and they basically refused to play with him again. Fair enough. Very different to the M&M case where this didn't happen.