Five saints called in Lovett case

dals_da_bomb · Thu 12 Aug 2010 8:15pm

I found Roos response interesting also..

He thought a phone call at 2.30am claiming police where at the apartment was a prank?

Also is it possible that quotes from the players is part quoted.

Mini is quoted along the lines as saying 'F**k off we dont want you here'.. is that at the same stage as Lovett walking in with a "confused look on his face"
I would be saying the same thing if i was "looking after" a girl who was claiming to be raped by said person.
I would also say to the other players that its going to 'f**k up the club'.
Just wondering if maybe these quotes are being taken out of context to a degree.

I would like to say that from what i read Schnieder should be proud of himself for not jumping the gun. Not so much to out right defend Lovett but to remind what would of been a very dark atmosphere that there are 2 sides to the story.

Well, this is a basic run down of what my office was speaking about today...

saintnick12 · Thu 12 Aug 2010 8:17pm

saint66au wrote:Just one comment from the reams of media dedicated to it made me think a little..

Anyone else think that, as captain of an AFL Club, Roo perhaps was a tad hasty thinking Chipper's urgent call at 2.30am was a prank, and turning off his phone..even if he was asleep?

Reckon he'd do it differently if he had his time again

Yeah, I thought the same. He apparently said in his statement that Fisher sounded frantic and said there were police there - yet admits he turned his phone off thinking they were joking. Not a good look from the captain of the club...One of the other clubs leaders ringing him in a crisis and getting that reaction...particularly as Roo was there earlier in the night. Certainly does not paint Roo in a good light.

Maxstar22 · Post: # 971291Post **Maxstar22** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 8:20pm

I think most of it would be part quoted, mis quoted etc etc....

Initially I was suprised to read that Roo turned his phone off...however, we don;t know the full story (and probably never will)...how do we know they dont "prank" him all the time??

Regardless, what was Roo going to be able to do anyways? The incident had already taken place??

I think I asked this late last year or earlier this year as my legal knowledge is pretty basic....in regards to the alleged victim...does "consent" go out the window if you are drunk? Or is consent or non consent the same whether drunk or sober?

Thinline · Post: # 971315Post **Thinline** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 9:05pm

saintnick12 wrote:
saint66au wrote:Just one comment from the reams of media dedicated to it made me think a little..

Anyone else think that, as captain of an AFL Club, Roo perhaps was a tad hasty thinking Chipper's urgent call at 2.30am was a prank, and turning off his phone..even if he was asleep?

Reckon he'd do it differently if he had his time again
Yeah, I thought the same. He apparently said in his statement that Fisher sounded frantic and said there were police there - yet admits he turned his phone off thinking they were joking. Not a good look from the captain of the club...One of the other clubs leaders ringing him in a crisis and getting that reaction...particularly as Roo was there earlier in the night. Certainly does not paint Roo in a good light.

At 2.30 in the morning! I'm impressed he answered his phone at all...

Come on guys...Don't think you are over-thinking things just a little bit?

mbogo · Post: # 971328Post **mbogo** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 9:42pm

I have a question for all you legal experts on here.
If a girl starts having sex with someone she starts kissing when pissed and half unconscious - then half way through decides that she has started off with the "wrong bloke" - and objects!
That becomes rape at that point in time, doesn't it?
But what a messy f*ckin scenario!
I am sure there are a million precedents. I wonder what they suggest?
From reports I thought Fisher was the "real leader" on this night.

dcstkfc · Post: # 971331Post **dcstkfc** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 9:46pm

mbogo wrote:I have a question for all you legal experts on here.
If a girl starts having sex with someone she starts kissing when pissed and half unconscious - then half way through decides that she has started off with the "wrong bloke" - and objects!
That becomes rape at that point in time, doesn't it?
But what a messy f*ckin scenario!
I am sure there are a million precedents. I wonder what they suggest?
From reports I thought Fisher was the "real leader" on this night.

From the Victorian Crimes Act

S38(2)(a) A person commits rape if he or she intentionally sexually penetrates another person without that person's consent-
(i) while being aware that the person is not consenting or might not be consenting; or
(ii) while not giving any thought to whether the person is not consenting or might not be consenting

stinger · Post: # 971339Post **stinger** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:00pm

mbogo wrote:I have a question for all you legal experts on here.
If a girl starts having sex with someone she starts kissing when pissed and half unconscious - then half way through decides that she has started off with the "wrong bloke" - and objects!
That becomes rape at that point in time, doesn't it?
But what a messy f*ckin scenario!
t.

short answer?.......yes.....even if she had started off with the right bloke.....she can withdraw her consent at any time......rough eh???

mbogo · Post: # 971341Post **mbogo** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:02pm

So the defence would be that "no thought was given to her not consenting since she appeared to be - until she called him Jason - then he stopped".
Or he has said something to incriminate himself .....

Bernard Shakey · Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:03pm

stinger wrote:
mbogo wrote:I have a question for all you legal experts on here.
If a girl starts having sex with someone she starts kissing when pissed and half unconscious - then half way through decides that she has started off with the "wrong bloke" - and objects!
That becomes rape at that point in time, doesn't it?
But what a messy f*ckin scenario!
t.

short answer?.......yes.....even if she had started off with the right bloke.....she can withdraw her consent at any time......rough eh???

Not really!

stinger · Post: # 971344Post **stinger** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:05pm

it was tongue in cheek....

Bernard Shakey · Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:07pm

stinger wrote:it was tongue in cheek.... :roll:

I just can't get the hang of those little yellow things.

mbogo · Post: # 971347Post **mbogo** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:08pm

How many minutes or seconds after - and how many imprisonments have resulted from this messy drunken picture in Vic?
If Geelong or Carlton - the issue may have been *resolved* IMFHO.

SainterK · Post: # 971349Post **SainterK** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:12pm

Moods wrote:
saint66au wrote:Just one comment from the reams of media dedicated to it made me think a little..

Anyone else think that, as captain of an AFL Club, Roo perhaps was a tad hasty thinking Chipper's urgent call at 2.30am was a prank, and turning off his phone..even if he was asleep?

Reckon he'd do it differently if he had his time again
Agreed. I know this sounds harsh - but as soon as I read it I thought 'if I was an opposition supporter I would say Roo was weak as Piss.' Reads like he didn't want to know. I obviously don't know what happened, but if a player calls you frantically during the night - and you are the captain - YOU take the call. THat's leadership. On this occasion I don't reckon Roo displayed it.

Just gos to prove that no-one is perfect - even Roo.

Have to agree, they rang him because they needed him...

Does anyone else thinks it's a little strange he felt that while everyone was drinking, it wasn't out of hand....Adam testified that he recalls Kosi telling Lovett to pull his head in and stop drinking, Schneider admits he had 20+ drinks....

I think the original idea of pizza's and beers at someone's house will be the norm in the future.

stinger · Post: # 971351Post **stinger** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:15pm

mbogo wrote:How many minutes or seconds after - and how many imprisonments have resulted from this messy drunken picture in Vic?
If Geelong or Carlton - the issue may have been *resolved* IMFHO.

you may be right.....might also not have gotten this far if she didn't have a current afl player as an ex boyfriend.....it was the filth player who called the cops....saw the main chance perhaps...but who could blame him....

mbogo · Post: # 971352Post **mbogo** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:15pm

SainterK ... Only if someone brings in a ute to bring in the slabs!
Stinger ... yeah - it just sucks that OUR players are being dragged though the courts here! It is obvious that "Lovey" f'd up here - but only after so many slabs. And what is with his "friend" who brought over the other girl and left her there.

Thinline · Post: # 971355Post **Thinline** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:19pm

mbogo wrote:How many minutes or seconds after - and how many imprisonments have resulted from this messy drunken picture in Vic?
If Geelong or Carlton - the issue may have been *resolved* IMFHO.

My uneducated view would be f*** all victims get the result they want and/or deserve.

A complicated, alcohol, hormone fuelled mess can be reduced to guilty or not guilty...It's impossible.

IMO.

I fail to see how a bloke could reckon he could get away with jumping on a sleeping drunk bird. I mean the mechanics of the process are kinda preposterous. Equally, though I can see how a foggy headed bird might go along with something then snap out of it. By the same token I can understand how a bloke might be led to believe that something's 'on' when it's not. And at the end of all that, I absolutely defend even the drunkest, most overtly sexual woman's right to say yay or nay whenever she so chooses. And on the back of all that if you can chuck all the Lovett facts in the pot and hit a switch that says 'give me an answer: right or wrong?'...well, I'm stumped...End result? Some pretty ruined people.

Thinline · Post: # 971359Post **Thinline** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:22pm

SainterK wrote:
Moods wrote:
saint66au wrote:Just one comment from the reams of media dedicated to it made me think a little..

Anyone else think that, as captain of an AFL Club, Roo perhaps was a tad hasty thinking Chipper's urgent call at 2.30am was a prank, and turning off his phone..even if he was asleep?

Reckon he'd do it differently if he had his time again
Agreed. I know this sounds harsh - but as soon as I read it I thought 'if I was an opposition supporter I would say Roo was weak as Piss.' Reads like he didn't want to know. I obviously don't know what happened, but if a player calls you frantically during the night - and you are the captain - YOU take the call. THat's leadership. On this occasion I don't reckon Roo displayed it.

Just gos to prove that no-one is perfect - even Roo.
Have to agree, they rang him because they needed him...

Does anyone else thinks it's a little strange he felt that while everyone was drinking, it wasn't out of hand....Adam testified that he recalls Kosi telling Lovett to pull his head in and stop drinking, Schneider admits he had 20+ drinks....

I think the original idea of pizza's and beers at someone's house will be the norm in the future.

Some get happy, some get sad, some dribble, some sleep, some swing punches...

I'm happy on a skinful.

My best mate's hilarious and all affectionate.

My brother's an angry prick.

Maybe Schneider was silly and Lovett was being a f***wit?

SainterK · Post: # 971361Post **SainterK** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:25pm

Thinline wrote:
SainterK wrote:
Moods wrote:
saint66au wrote:Just one comment from the reams of media dedicated to it made me think a little..

Anyone else think that, as captain of an AFL Club, Roo perhaps was a tad hasty thinking Chipper's urgent call at 2.30am was a prank, and turning off his phone..even if he was asleep?

Reckon he'd do it differently if he had his time again
Agreed. I know this sounds harsh - but as soon as I read it I thought 'if I was an opposition supporter I would say Roo was weak as Piss.' Reads like he didn't want to know. I obviously don't know what happened, but if a player calls you frantically during the night - and you are the captain - YOU take the call. THat's leadership. On this occasion I don't reckon Roo displayed it.

Just gos to prove that no-one is perfect - even Roo.
Have to agree, they rang him because they needed him...

Does anyone else thinks it's a little strange he felt that while everyone was drinking, it wasn't out of hand....Adam testified that he recalls Kosi telling Lovett to pull his head in and stop drinking, Schneider admits he had 20+ drinks....

I think the original idea of pizza's and beers at someone's house will be the norm in the future.
Some get happy, some get sad, some dribble, some sleep, some swing punches...

I'm happy on a skinful.

My best mate's hilarious and all affectionate.

My brother's an angry prick.

Maybe Schneider was silly and Lovett was being a f***wit?

It was more Roo's perception that the drinking wasn't excessive, perhaps it was....dunno.

mbogo · Post: # 971363Post **mbogo** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:27pm

Memo to self - make sure daughter does not go near drunken footballers (in a few years!) none of them have any idea ... or should that be males in general ...?

SainterK · Post: # 971364Post **SainterK** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:28pm

mbogo wrote:SainterK ... Only if someone brings in a ute to bring in the slabs!

Well if they are planning to drink a lot, it's probably the best scenario....I'm sure one of them drives one.

Bernard Shakey · Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:33pm

SainterK wrote:
mbogo wrote:SainterK ... Only if someone brings in a ute to bring in the slabs!
Well if they are planning to drink a lot, it's probably the best scenario....I'm sure one of them drives one.

Yeah, he does.

ChelseaGuy · Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:57pm

mbogo wrote:Memo to self - make sure daughter does not go near drunken footballers (in a few years!) none of them have any idea ... or should that be males in general ...?

Mbogo, as a father I would say all males... esp males over the age of 15. But seriously, as much as women should not need to consider these circumstances, the message to my teenage daughter is don't put yourself in those situations -- not because it is her responsibility but because I want her to be safe and I don't trust drunk f**ks to respect her.

markp · Post: # 971373Post **markp** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:58pm

GrumpyOne wrote:
markp wrote: The least important aspect of this is the damage to Lovett's career... he was on the last chance highway anyway, but if all goes well for him he is free to play where ever he is welcome.
C'mon Mark, you and I both know that nobody will touch him now, irrespective of the verdict.

Isn't he set to play in the WAFL?

Anyway, my point is any damage to his precious career cannot be blamed on the club and the way it handled the matter.

saintspremiers · Thu 12 Aug 2010 11:00pm

saint66au wrote:Just one comment from the reams of media dedicated to it made me think a little..

Anyone else think that, as captain of an AFL Club, Roo perhaps was a tad hasty thinking Chipper's urgent call at 2.30am was a prank, and turning off his phone..even if he was asleep?

Reckon he'd do it differently if he had his time again

Maybe Roo was maggoted at that stage and just wanted some shut eye!

santazzi · Post: # 971379Post **santazzi** » Thu 12 Aug 2010 11:15pm

stinger wrote:
mbogo wrote:I have a question for all you legal experts on here.
If a girl starts having sex with someone she starts kissing when pissed and half unconscious - then half way through decides that she has started off with the "wrong bloke" - and objects!
That becomes rape at that point in time, doesn't it?
But what a messy f*ckin scenario!
t.

short answer?.......yes.....even if she had started off with the right bloke.....she can withdraw her consent at any time......rough eh???

The thing which bothers me Stinger is that the major actors are repoted to be Ã«xtemely dunk" and yet their atterances are at the centre of the case........as a lawyer you know that capacity is a legal and not a social construct ...I am just confused....If the material which is all confused and makes no sense to me that was presented at the commital is repeated at the trial I hate to be on the Jury........he may walk free........