Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Moods wrote:
Not if the female has tired of the whole thing and has refused to speak or further involve herself. All it requires is a couple of patrons to say it wasn't that bad (like they would know because Dusty was speaking to them) and we have a lack of evidence and just a drunk obnoxious bloke in a bar. It's the whole reason why coppers don't go courting for work in these types of instances. Let the victim come to them and complain, get the statement and investigate from there.
I guess the question is, what reason did the lady have to make the allegation in the first place? What reason does she have to make things up? She lives interstate. The AFL community have made it clear to her that her complaint will cost Dusty his career - pretty sure that wasn't her intention when she made the complaint - she didn't even know it was a criminal offence.
This statement that there is nil evidence to support her assertions I reckon is misleading. Technically correct but reads like the whole thing was BS. She is being leant on everywhere. The tiges, the AFL, her own employer, Richmond supporters, media outlets in Melbourne. I believe that in her mind she would think 'is this really worth pursuing?' What is there to gain here?
But if there is no evidence then what can the club do? You can suspend someone because he looks and seems like a d**khead. If Dusty did someone and it was proven then out he goes. Without proof all has really been fined for is being drunk in a public place and that's probably all they could do.
Moods wrote:
Not if the female has tired of the whole thing and has refused to speak or further involve herself. All it requires is a couple of patrons to say it wasn't that bad (like they would know because Dusty was speaking to them) and we have a lack of evidence and just a drunk obnoxious bloke in a bar. It's the whole reason why coppers don't go courting for work in these types of instances. Let the victim come to them and complain, get the statement and investigate from there.
I guess the question is, what reason did the lady have to make the allegation in the first place? What reason does she have to make things up? She lives interstate. The AFL community have made it clear to her that her complaint will cost Dusty his career - pretty sure that wasn't her intention when she made the complaint - she didn't even know it was a criminal offence.
This statement that there is nil evidence to support her assertions I reckon is misleading. Technically correct but reads like the whole thing was BS. She is being leant on everywhere. The tiges, the AFL, her own employer, Richmond supporters, media outlets in Melbourne. I believe that in her mind she would think 'is this really worth pursuing?' What is there to gain here?
But if there is no evidence then what can the club do? You can suspend someone because he looks and seems like a d**khead. If Dusty did someone and it was proven then out he goes. Without proof all has really been fined for is being drunk in a public place and that's probably all they could do.
I agree. My post is really in response to those who claim, - 'see, he did nothing. It was all BS' Not saying that the police or AFL or Tiges can do anything. Just saying that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I still believe it most likely did.
Moods wrote:
I agree. My post is really in response to those who claim, - 'see, he did nothing. It was all BS' Not saying that the police or AFL or Tiges can do anything. Just saying that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I still believe it most likely did.
Moods wrote:
Not if the female has tired of the whole thing and has refused to speak or further involve herself. All it requires is a couple of patrons to say it wasn't that bad (like they would know because Dusty was speaking to them) and we have a lack of evidence and just a drunk obnoxious bloke in a bar. It's the whole reason why coppers don't go courting for work in these types of instances. Let the victim come to them and complain, get the statement and investigate from there.
I guess the question is, what reason did the lady have to make the allegation in the first place? What reason does she have to make things up? She lives interstate. The AFL community have made it clear to her that her complaint will cost Dusty his career - pretty sure that wasn't her intention when she made the complaint - she didn't even know it was a criminal offence.
This statement that there is nil evidence to support her assertions I reckon is misleading. Technically correct but reads like the whole thing was BS. She is being leant on everywhere. The tiges, the AFL, her own employer, Richmond supporters, media outlets in Melbourne. I believe that in her mind she would think 'is this really worth pursuing?' What is there to gain here?
But if there is no evidence then what can the club do? You can suspend someone because he looks and seems like a d**khead. If Dusty did someone and it was proven then out he goes. Without proof all has really been fined for is being drunk in a public place and that's probably all they could do.
I agree. My post is really in response to those who claim, - 'see, he did nothing. It was all BS' Not saying that the police or AFL or Tiges can do anything. Just saying that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I still believe it most likely did.
If nothing untoward happened then why was it reported in the papers
In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.
Moods wrote:
Not if the female has tired of the whole thing and has refused to speak or further involve herself. All it requires is a couple of patrons to say it wasn't that bad (like they would know because Dusty was speaking to them) and we have a lack of evidence and just a drunk obnoxious bloke in a bar. It's the whole reason why coppers don't go courting for work in these types of instances. Let the victim come to them and complain, get the statement and investigate from there.
I guess the question is, what reason did the lady have to make the allegation in the first place? What reason does she have to make things up? She lives interstate. The AFL community have made it clear to her that her complaint will cost Dusty his career - pretty sure that wasn't her intention when she made the complaint - she didn't even know it was a criminal offence.
This statement that there is nil evidence to support her assertions I reckon is misleading. Technically correct but reads like the whole thing was BS. She is being leant on everywhere. The tiges, the AFL, her own employer, Richmond supporters, media outlets in Melbourne. I believe that in her mind she would think 'is this really worth pursuing?' What is there to gain here?
But if there is no evidence then what can the club do? You can suspend someone because he looks and seems like a d**khead. If Dusty did someone and it was proven then out he goes. Without proof all has really been fined for is being drunk in a public place and that's probably all they could do.
I agree. My post is really in response to those who claim, - 'see, he did nothing. It was all BS' Not saying that the police or AFL or Tiges can do anything. Just saying that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I still believe it most likely did.
If nothing untoward happened then why was it reported in the papers
I caught 5 minutes of radio in the car yesterday, I think it was SEN and a journo who was talking about the essendon saga (he was highly critical of the bombers), he was getting vile tweets as he spoke and read them out, mentioned how constant it had been, and widespread among other journos, including death threats.
Moods wrote:
Not if the female has tired of the whole thing and has refused to speak or further involve herself. All it requires is a couple of patrons to say it wasn't that bad (like they would know because Dusty was speaking to them) and we have a lack of evidence and just a drunk obnoxious bloke in a bar. It's the whole reason why coppers don't go courting for work in these types of instances. Let the victim come to them and complain, get the statement and investigate from there.
I guess the question is, what reason did the lady have to make the allegation in the first place? What reason does she have to make things up? She lives interstate. The AFL community have made it clear to her that her complaint will cost Dusty his career - pretty sure that wasn't her intention when she made the complaint - she didn't even know it was a criminal offence.
This statement that there is nil evidence to support her assertions I reckon is misleading. Technically correct but reads like the whole thing was BS. She is being leant on everywhere. The tiges, the AFL, her own employer, Richmond supporters, media outlets in Melbourne. I believe that in her mind she would think 'is this really worth pursuing?' What is there to gain here?
But if there is no evidence then what can the club do? You can suspend someone because he looks and seems like a d**khead. If Dusty did someone and it was proven then out he goes. Without proof all has really been fined for is being drunk in a public place and that's probably all they could do.
I agree. My post is really in response to those who claim, - 'see, he did nothing. It was all BS' Not saying that the police or AFL or Tiges can do anything. Just saying that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I still believe it most likely did.
If nothing untoward happened then why was it reported in the papers
School girl pregnant, Kosi involved in rape case.
Kosi got an apology, retraction and a payout didn't he?... Martin won't.
dragit wrote:Looking forward to the Womans Day exclusive.
Doesn't appear to be as dumb as Swan or Cloke.
In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.
Patently clear that neither Richmond or the AFL care about violence towards women.
Don't think he acrually said that.
anyway.
"Victoria Police determined no criminal offence took place after the woman declined to make a statement, as it is understood she did not wish to be dragged into a public court case.
Both Richmond and the AFL last week added there was “no evidence’’ to support the allegation Martin threatened the complainant.
AFL Integrity officers on Thursday said Martin had no case to answer.
The club fined him $5000 but then suspended the penalty, saying the damage to his reputation was punishment enough"
Patently clear that neither Richmond or the AFL care about violence towards women.
Don't think he acrually said that.
anyway.
"Victoria Police determined no criminal offence took place after the woman declined to make a statement, as it is understood she did not wish to be dragged into a public court case.
Both Richmond and the AFL last week added there was “no evidence’’ to support the allegation Martin threatened the complainant.
AFL Integrity officers on Thursday said Martin had no case to answer.
The club fined him $5000 but then suspended the penalty, saying the damage to his reputation was punishment enough"
Richmond are pissweak
In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.
And as KB pointed out yesterday, the afl can come down hard when it suits them, as when heath shaw was banned for 14 games (6 suspended) and fined $20k for getting a mate to put $10 on the pies to win.
If she made it up martin should (and really must) sue... I've got a feeling he wont sue.
markp wrote:And as KB pointed out yesterday, the afl can come down hard when it suits them, as when heath shaw was banned for 14 games (6 suspended) and fined $20k for getting a mate to put $10 on the pies to win.
If she made it up martin should (and really must) sue... I've got a feeling he wont sue.
Surely she must sue for being made out to be a liar?
markp wrote:And as KB pointed out yesterday, the afl can come down hard when it suits them, as when heath shaw was banned for 14 games (6 suspended) and fined $20k for getting a mate to put $10 on the pies to win.
If she made it up martin should (and really must) sue... I've got a feeling he wont sue.
Surely she must sue for being made out to be a liar?
Where have they said she's a liar?
They've been very careful not to.
Nobody really knows who she is anyway, he's been greatly damaged by this.
And it's the media organisations he'd be better off going after, they could retract, apologise, and afford to fairly compensate.
markp wrote:And as KB pointed out yesterday, the afl can come down hard when it suits them, as when heath shaw was banned for 14 games (6 suspended) and fined $20k for getting a mate to put $10 on the pies to win.
If she made it up martin should (and really must) sue... I've got a feeling he wont sue.
Surely she must sue for being made out to be a liar?
Where have they said she's a liar?
They've been very careful not to.
Nobody really knows who she is anyway, he's been greatly damaged by this.
And it's the media organisations he'd be better off going after, they could retract, apologise, and afford to fairly compensate.
Well surely they are saying what she said was untrue otherwise they would have said they do have evidence.
markp wrote:And as KB pointed out yesterday, the afl can come down hard when it suits them, as when heath shaw was banned for 14 games (6 suspended) and fined $20k for getting a mate to put $10 on the pies to win.
If she made it up martin should (and really must) sue... I've got a feeling he wont sue.
Surely she must sue for being made out to be a liar?
Where have they said she's a liar?
They've been very careful not to.
Nobody really knows who she is anyway, he's been greatly damaged by this.
And it's the media organisations he'd be better off going after, they could retract, apologise, and afford to fairly compensate.
Well surely they are saying what she said was untrue otherwise they would have said they do have evidence.
So she should sue for what?
She should now go to court when she said she wanted to avoid a public court case, why?
An unknown person has been damaged by the club saying no crime took place how?
As the club conceded, martin is the one whose reputation has been damaged, he should sue.
Martin would be pretty unlikely to sue as it would attract more attention to the situation.
The guy can't even remember what happened, and was obviously being a dick so is not in a great position.
Clearly there was an altercation, the veracity of his intent to kill a woman with a chopstick seems to be the debatable issue… and while it's easy to say that Richmond, the AFL and the Police are all corrupt, after an extensive investigation and interviews with others in the room, they've concluded that he was more of an obnoxious drunk than a violent murderer.
She didn't like his behavior, took him to task… didn't like his response, rang his club, did a prime time national news piece suggesting that he was also using drugs… makes a lot of noise, but declines to make a statement to police.
Another patron said the Richmond player was 'bumping into people' before placing chopsticks in his mouth and pretended to be a walrus.
Patently clear that neither Richmond or the AFL care about violence towards women.
Read it today and it was exactly what I thought. The guys statements have the ring of truth about them, corroborate what she said (she may have enhanced her story a bit which people do when they are trying to make their case or feel particularly aggrieved) and other people in the restaurant. Based on all these reports Richmond should have had the balls to rub him out for at least a couple of games to make a statement to him. Martin will think he's bullet proof now and I can almost guarantee you he will fire up again somewhere and this time it might go further or be captured on tv.
Bunk_Moreland wrote:But the AFL and Richmond cover it up.
Yep, by taking it to the police.
Based on those corroborating statements you should ping him for a couple of games clearly. Drunk to the point of amnesia, probably drugged, smacking walls, waving chopsticks whilst cornering the woman. If there was cctv of it I guarantee you he would have gone. AFL lick their lips when there is no vision. "Get the broom out and lift up the rug - brand management don't you know". Hardwick is so desperate to make finals and then win one (his job is hanging on it) he doesn't have the balls to make a statement. "All is forgiven Dusty - just please play well for us. Please"
Bunk_Moreland wrote:But the AFL and Richmond cover it up.
Yep, by taking it to the police.
Based on those corroborating statements you should ping him for a couple of games clearly. Drunk to the point of amnesia, probably drugged, smacking walls, waving chopsticks whilst cornering the woman. If there was cctv of it I guarantee you he would have gone. AFL lick their lips when there is no vision. "Get the broom out and lift up the rug - brand management don't you know". Hardwick is so desperate to make finals and then win one (his job is hanging on it) he doesn't have the balls to make a statement. "All is forgiven Dusty - just please play well for us. Please"
Bunk_Moreland wrote:But the AFL and Richmond cover it up.
Yep, by taking it to the police.
Based on those corroborating statements you should ping him for a couple of games clearly. Drunk to the point of amnesia, probably drugged, smacking walls, waving chopsticks whilst cornering the woman. If there was cctv of it I guarantee you he would have gone. AFL lick their lips when there is no vision. "Get the broom out and lift up the rug - brand management don't you know". Hardwick is so desperate to make finals and then win one (his job is hanging on it) he doesn't have the balls to make a statement. "All is forgiven Dusty - just please play well for us. Please"
The problem is even "Tracey's" friend didn't corroborate her story… he didn't hear Martin say what she is suggesting was said… he also said that he didn't think the slap on the wall was targeted at her, but he was obviously aggrieved that she had just threatened to ring his club.
I doubt CTV footage would have made any difference, it would have shown a drunk wanker staggering around with chopsticks in his mouth and then having a 60 second argument with Tracy.
The only thing that would support the story that he was threatening her life would have been from other diners accounts… even her friend couldn't do that.
