Just words. At the moment they have done nothing wrong.The OtherThommo wrote:There was evidence presented in the committal hearing that, indeed, the AFL players involved had done something very wrong. I reckon there is still a long way to go with this.plugger66 wrote:The collingwood players havent done anything wrong though.Leo.J wrote:Where might they be?Cairnsman wrote:ummm. there are posts in this thread that are doing just that.Johnny Member wrote:Cairnsman wrote:Did I mention that the victim is someones Daughter.
FFS. How can this make anybody gloat or feel like it is some type of revenge.
This thread makes me sick and ashamed to be a football fan.
I don't think anyone would gloat about the alledged incident happening.
People seem to be pleased that the people involved in this case despite being Collingwood players are being named in the media, not happy about what they've been alledged to have done.
What has been printed is what has been said in a court of law, not concocted by some tabloid creative writer, at the expense of our clubs brand.
These two things are a little different.
To those who say, 'but, they haven't even been charged', I say 'not yet'.
There is nothing on the books to say all potential charges, against all potential defendents, have to be made at the one time and go through one court case.
I would not be at all surprised if the DPP is running this case because it believes it is the one most likely to succeed and deliver some justice for the girl. And, if they are successful, I am sure they would review the potential for other related charges.
Any decision on whether to proceed with other charges would be influenced by the outcome of the first trial. There is also the potential for the defendent in the first trial to change his plea mid-trial, on the basis of a forecast conviction and the offer of a lenient sentence in exchange for his testimony in subsequent trials. That is precisely how Purana got most of their cases that are still progessing through the courts. There is also the potential for others who may foresee themselves being caught up in any subsequent actions to rediscover their memory, and decide to get out in of what may come, in exchange for not being charged.
The other reason for tackling one case to start with is the state of mind of the alleged victim. There was some common knowledge late last year that the complexity of the whole events of that night, if presented in a single trial of all potential defendents, and bought on the basis of the girl's testimony alone (aside from the forensic evidence gathered in hospital) would be too difficult, particularly for her. Indeed, it is highly likely (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) she felt completely overwhelmed at the prospect of being one out against a defence team for multiple defendents, in a case involving high profile people who had already exercised significant power over her before. And, she had seen the media at work within days of making her allegations.
It is a lot more difficult running cases involving multiple defendents and a single victim (who is the only witness who was present testifying for the prosecution). But, the strength in numbers becomes a liability the minute the ranks look like breaking. The best way to break those ranks is to isolate the individuals. If they have perpetrated the actions presented in evidence in the committal hearing, they will have no allegiance to each other when the cracks start appearing. If they are the type who would carry out such crimes as those alleged, then they'll fold like a crook poker hand when presented with an opportunity to extricate themselves, or receive a lesser punishment.
I really do hope the first case is successful in achieving justice for the girl (and before anyone accuses me of prejudging, read that sentence again). If that outcome is a guilty verdict, then I hope the girl is able to take some comfort from it and participate with a prosecution strategy involving subsequent actions.
Nah, this has a long way to run. Eat the elephant a bit at a time.
Hallelujah
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12754
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 764 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
No, this dropkick is having a not too subtle dig at me for calling him on his disgraceful thread where he called Goddard a cancer that needed to be removed from our Club.Thinline wrote:How so?Cairnsman wrote:Moral compasses can be very very selective sometimes.plugger66 wrote:And say they werent and it was exactly the same as the Lovett incident where it happened in a different room. I suppose assumptions are ok in this case as it is the pies. Unlike it seems most here i hope they are completely innocent.Mr Magic wrote:They have been known to use that defense in explaining their non-action where morally adn ethically society may have expected alternate behaviour.markp wrote:You'd reckon that's what the court case will help to determine.plugger66 wrote:But what have the pies players done wrong?
Who knows, maybe they were present but slept through the whole thing.
As I read the details of this case (as publishesd) I keep getting an image in my mind of an old movie starring Jodie Foster (I think it was titled Accused?) where she was raped in a bar by a group of men.
She took all those standing on the sidelines and watching to court because not one of them stepped in and tried to stop it.
I don't know what the law says about such a situation but in my mind there is something ethically and morally wrong with people standing around watching a crime being comitted and doing nothing.
If the allegations are proven and it turns out Beames and/or McCarthy just stood there watching, what does it say about them?
(And I would think the same about anybody in that position.)
As far as we know, one alleged incident involved significant proximity, and the other alleged incident took place out of view behind a closed door.
I don't have much difficulty rationally distinguishing the reported circumstances at all.
Either he's trying to be too cute or he really is less intelligent than I thought he was.
-
Cairnsman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7377
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005 10:38pm
- Location: Everywhere
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 276 times
You are a dead set self righteous hypocrite. Get over yourself.Mr Magic wrote:No, this dropkick is having a not too subtle dig at me for calling him on his disgraceful thread where he called Goddard a cancer that needed to be removed from our Club.Thinline wrote:How so?Cairnsman wrote:Moral compasses can be very very selective sometimes.plugger66 wrote:And say they werent and it was exactly the same as the Lovett incident where it happened in a different room. I suppose assumptions are ok in this case as it is the pies. Unlike it seems most here i hope they are completely innocent.Mr Magic wrote:They have been known to use that defense in explaining their non-action where morally adn ethically society may have expected alternate behaviour.markp wrote:You'd reckon that's what the court case will help to determine.plugger66 wrote:But what have the pies players done wrong?
Who knows, maybe they were present but slept through the whole thing.
As I read the details of this case (as publishesd) I keep getting an image in my mind of an old movie starring Jodie Foster (I think it was titled Accused?) where she was raped in a bar by a group of men.
She took all those standing on the sidelines and watching to court because not one of them stepped in and tried to stop it.
I don't know what the law says about such a situation but in my mind there is something ethically and morally wrong with people standing around watching a crime being comitted and doing nothing.
If the allegations are proven and it turns out Beames and/or McCarthy just stood there watching, what does it say about them?
(And I would think the same about anybody in that position.)
As far as we know, one alleged incident involved significant proximity, and the other alleged incident took place out of view behind a closed door.
I don't have much difficulty rationally distinguishing the reported circumstances at all.
Either he's trying to be too cute or he really is less intelligent than I thought he was.
-
saint tash
- Club Player
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Fri 31 Jul 2009 6:16pm
Oh yeah sorry Leo the Lion. My bad.Leo.J wrote:'Our' you say.saint tash wrote:Don't forget we have a trial coming up later in the year whereby some of ours will be called as witnesses.
Not a nice distraction all the same.
Different circumstances admittedly.
Still a guy that never played a game for us drags our names thru the mud.
Nice try to divert this away from the Filth.
Oh when the saints go charging in!
-
tony74
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 1998
- Joined: Thu 23 Sep 2010 11:35am
- Been thanked: 1198 times
-
markp
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 15549
- Joined: Mon 26 Mar 2007 4:22pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
Seems to me like he's hypocritically (and falsely) calling people for gloating about the same matter he's using to play forum games with.Mr Magic wrote:No, this dropkick is having a not too subtle dig at me for calling him on his disgraceful thread where he called Goddard a cancer that needed to be removed from our Club.Thinline wrote:How so?Cairnsman wrote:Moral compasses can be very very selective sometimes.plugger66 wrote:And say they werent and it was exactly the same as the Lovett incident where it happened in a different room. I suppose assumptions are ok in this case as it is the pies. Unlike it seems most here i hope they are completely innocent.Mr Magic wrote:They have been known to use that defense in explaining their non-action where morally adn ethically society may have expected alternate behaviour.markp wrote:You'd reckon that's what the court case will help to determine.plugger66 wrote:But what have the pies players done wrong?
Who knows, maybe they were present but slept through the whole thing.
As I read the details of this case (as publishesd) I keep getting an image in my mind of an old movie starring Jodie Foster (I think it was titled Accused?) where she was raped in a bar by a group of men.
She took all those standing on the sidelines and watching to court because not one of them stepped in and tried to stop it.
I don't know what the law says about such a situation but in my mind there is something ethically and morally wrong with people standing around watching a crime being comitted and doing nothing.
If the allegations are proven and it turns out Beames and/or McCarthy just stood there watching, what does it say about them?
(And I would think the same about anybody in that position.)
As far as we know, one alleged incident involved significant proximity, and the other alleged incident took place out of view behind a closed door.
I don't have much difficulty rationally distinguishing the reported circumstances at all.
Either he's trying to be too cute or he really is less intelligent than I thought he was.
-
saint tash
- Club Player
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Fri 31 Jul 2009 6:16pm
Religion. Obviously got me confused with someone else.degruch wrote:Try religion next time. Hold on...p66 is good mates with God, better try Middle Eastern politics, he won't know which side to argue then.tony74 wrote:Gee I know how to start a contentious thread dont I? First "Luke Bloody Ball" now this one.
-
markp
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 15549
- Joined: Mon 26 Mar 2007 4:22pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
I often read your posts and think 'oh god....'plugger66 wrote:Religion. Obviously got me confused with someone else.degruch wrote:Try religion next time. Hold on...p66 is good mates with God, better try Middle Eastern politics, he won't know which side to argue then.tony74 wrote:Gee I know how to start a contentious thread dont I? First "Luke Bloody Ball" now this one.
In a good way of course. You were actually thinking why didnt I say that.markp wrote:I often read your posts and think 'oh god....'plugger66 wrote:Religion. Obviously got me confused with someone else.degruch wrote:Try religion next time. Hold on...p66 is good mates with God, better try Middle Eastern politics, he won't know which side to argue then.tony74 wrote:Gee I know how to start a contentious thread dont I? First "Luke Bloody Ball" now this one.
-
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 here's something to keep the thread going:
"..And Collingwood player Dayne Beams is likely to be called to give evidence at the trial after a court heard the alleged victim told police she "felt compelled" to have sex with the premiership midfielder on the same night..."
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/magpi ... 1h07v.html
"..And Collingwood player Dayne Beams is likely to be called to give evidence at the trial after a court heard the alleged victim told police she "felt compelled" to have sex with the premiership midfielder on the same night..."
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/magpi ... 1h07v.html
-
InkerSaint
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2132
- Joined: Wed 07 Jan 2009 3:06pm
Yep because bad publicity for the pies wouldnt sell papers. Not. And anyway they do have it in their story so there goes those conspiracies.InkerSaint wrote:Beat me to it Dr.
It turns out the H-Scum have been feeding us the sanitised version.
Last edited by plugger66 on Tue 05 Jul 2011 5:35pm, edited 1 time in total.
I find nothing cheery or vindicative regarding another footballer or footballers involved in an elledged rape.
I find it distressing to think anyone would use this criminal procedure to cast aspersions on a football club or its players using such a distressing issues.
I was sick to the stomach by the attacks on M&M and Lovett. I think we should not lower ourselves to the level of the Collingwood coach and their cheer squad and low life supporters by accusing any Collingwood player or players of being a rapist.
The people who use this as a barb at the football are sick and are the lowest of the low. How would they feel if it was their mother or sister who had been victim to this type of sexual assault?
Dont go down the path.
I find it distressing to think anyone would use this criminal procedure to cast aspersions on a football club or its players using such a distressing issues.
I was sick to the stomach by the attacks on M&M and Lovett. I think we should not lower ourselves to the level of the Collingwood coach and their cheer squad and low life supporters by accusing any Collingwood player or players of being a rapist.
The people who use this as a barb at the football are sick and are the lowest of the low. How would they feel if it was their mother or sister who had been victim to this type of sexual assault?
Dont go down the path.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)