Court case

plugger66 · Post: # 1105231Post **plugger66** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 4:49pm

Mr Magic wrote:Interesting media reports today regarding the testimony of 'witness x' - cannot be named for fear of identifying the victim.

Unblelievable how we never manage to find ourselves in the situation of not being named!

The media may not name this particular person but his name is well known around town.

It was widely reported at the time of the incident.

So now the courts have it in for us and favour the pies or is it Freo. By the way does anyone know why the girl who alledges the rape isnt being named not that I have any interest in who it is.

Mr Magic · Post: # 1105235Post **Mr Magic** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 4:52pm

plugger66 wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:Interesting media reports today regarding the testimony of 'witness x' - cannot be named for fear of identifying the victim.

Unblelievable how we never manage to find ourselves in the situation of not being named!

The media may not name this particular person but his name is well known around town.

It was widely reported at the time of the incident.
So now the courts have it in for us and favour the pies or is it Freo. By the way does anyone know why the girl who alledges the rape isnt being named not that I have any interest in who it is.

Not at all.
No conspiracy as far as I can see, just 'fortuitous' for the person/Club involved that they don't have their name attached to a serious criminal matter. Not that this person did anything wrong.

As for not naming the girl, apparently it's an offense to identify the victim of a sexual assault.

plugger66 · Post: # 1105238Post **plugger66** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 4:55pm

Mr Magic wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:Interesting media reports today regarding the testimony of 'witness x' - cannot be named for fear of identifying the victim.

Unblelievable how we never manage to find ourselves in the situation of not being named!

The media may not name this particular person but his name is well known around town.

It was widely reported at the time of the incident.
So now the courts have it in for us and favour the pies or is it Freo. By the way does anyone know why the girl who alledges the rape isnt being named not that I have any interest in who it is.
Not at all.
No conspiracy as far as I can see, just 'fortuitous' for the person/Club involved that they don't have their name attached to a serious criminal matter. Not that this person did anything wrong.

As for not naming the girl, apparently it's an offense to identify the victim of a sexual assault.

Is that right? Certainly didnt know that.

ausfatcat · Post: # 1105273Post **ausfatcat** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 5:15pm

I am guessing the X person can't be named because it may make it more obvious who the alleged victim is.

Not a get St Kilda mentality.

Mr Magic · Post: # 1105282Post **Mr Magic** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 5:19pm

ausfatcat wrote:I am guessing the X person can't be named because it may make it more obvious who the alleged victim is.

Not a get St Kilda mentality.

Wasn't suggesting it was.
Just 'wistful' thinking on how 'lucky' some clubs are whilst others cannot seem to take a trick.

ausfatcat · Post: # 1105286Post **ausfatcat** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 5:22pm

well as far as identifying the saints players goes it does not make it more obvious to identify the victim so no reason to suppress their names.

Con Gorozidis · Fri 15 Jul 2011 5:24pm

ausfatcat wrote:well as far as identifying the saints players goes it does not make it more obvious to identify the victim so no reason to suppress their names.

i dont believe the offender (lovett) should be named.
im not convinced at all by that. lets say he was innocent. we all know mud sticks. would ruin a blokes life even if he was innocent.

(im just commenting in general on naming offenders pre/during trial ).

Mr Magic · Post: # 1105293Post **Mr Magic** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 5:29pm

ausfatcat wrote:well as far as identifying the saints players goes it does not make it more obvious to identify the victim so no reason to suppress their names.

I'm not arguing with you on this.
I'm just 'sighing' out loud.

We've got blokes doing nothing more than the un-named one (testifying as a witness) and they're all being named in the media.

BTW, how does naming this person identify the victim?
I don't have a clue as to the name of his ex-girlfriend.
I don't know the names of any of the players' girlfriends unless they are 'social butterflies' and are constantly mentioned in the media.

So mentioning his name wouldn't identify teh victim to me.
I reckon most of the public would be in a similar position to me re this.
(not knowing the names of players' girlfriends)

plugger66 · Post: # 1105297Post **plugger66** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 5:33pm

Mr Magic wrote:
ausfatcat wrote:well as far as identifying the saints players goes it does not make it more obvious to identify the victim so no reason to suppress their names.
I'm not arguing with you on this.
I'm just 'sighing' out loud.

We've got blokes doing nothing more than the un-named one (testifying as a witness) and they're all being named in the media.

BTW, how does naming this person identify the victim?
I don't have a clue as to the name of his ex-girlfriend.
I don't know the names of any of the players' girlfriends unless they are 'social butterflies' and are constantly mentioned in the media.

So mentioning his name wouldn't identify teh victim to me.
I reckon most of the public would be in a similar position to me re this.
(not knowing the names of players' girlfriends)

If you knew his name you could probably get her name from the internet. Sounds like it does worry you. Lets face it you just want his club to be named. Dont see why it matters to be honest.

GrumpyOne · Post: # 1105299Post **GrumpyOne** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 5:34pm

Why can't Collingwood be named in court?

plugger66 · Post: # 1105303Post **plugger66** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 5:36pm

GrumpyOne wrote:Why can't Collingwood be named in court?

I suppose they could but i dont think Collingwood was there that night. He was playing cricket in Adelaide.

Mr Magic · Post: # 1105304Post **Mr Magic** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 5:36pm

GrumpyOne wrote:Why can't Collingwood be named in court?

It may lead an investigative member of the public to identify the witness adn then identify the victim?

GrumpyOne · Post: # 1105306Post **GrumpyOne** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 5:38pm

Mr Magic wrote:
GrumpyOne wrote:Why can't Collingwood be named in court?
It may lead an investigative member of the public to identify the witness adn then identify the victim?

I know jack about it anyway.

Mr Magic · Post: # 1105309Post **Mr Magic** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 5:40pm

GrumpyOne wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:
GrumpyOne wrote:Why can't Collingwood be named in court?
It may lead an investigative member of the public to identify the witness adn then identify the victim?
I know jack about it anyway.

ausfatcat · Post: # 1105316Post **ausfatcat** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 5:54pm

GrumpyOne wrote:I know jack about it anyway.

pretty sure Jack Stevens wasn't present

saintbrat · Post: # 1105349Post **saintbrat** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 6:47pm

Bernard Shakey wrote:
saintbrat wrote:the journos are doing a good job at following the Judges orders.
forget they are footballers
Lovett collapsed, says ex Saint

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-n ... 6094626888

so does this mean we have a spare spot on the team list for Saturday?
Not judge's orders. She instructed the jury to forget they are footballers, not the media.

BS my comment was more about the comment coming from an' ex saint" when infact it was made by a current saint.- hence my comment about there being a spot for the team this week..

GTHO · Post: # 1105413Post **GTHO** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 8:50pm

So this bird was willing to let Grammy give her one ... then Lovett does his "business" and first thing she does is ring her boyfriend

plugger66 · Post: # 1105414Post **plugger66** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 8:51pm

GTHO wrote:So this bird was willing to let Grammy give her one ... then Lovett does his "business" and first thing she does is ring her boyfriend

What a lot of s***.

GrumpyOne · Post: # 1105423Post **GrumpyOne** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 8:58pm

plugger66 wrote:
GTHO wrote:So this bird was willing to let Grammy give her one ... then Lovett does his "business" and first thing she does is ring her boyfriend
What a lot of s***.

Not quite the s*** you think Plug.

plugger66 · Post: # 1105425Post **plugger66** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:02pm

GrumpyOne wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
GTHO wrote:So this bird was willing to let Grammy give her one ... then Lovett does his "business" and first thing she does is ring her boyfriend
What a lot of s***.
Not quite the s*** you think Plug.

What does that mean?

mr six o'clock · Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:23pm

Found it interesting that the un-named player was wearing a black & white striped tie . perhaps he plays for footscray ?

meher baba · Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:41pm

GrumpyOne wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:
GrumpyOne wrote:Why can't Collingwood be named in court?
It may lead an investigative member of the public to identify the witness adn then identify the victim?
I know jack about it anyway.

And did Jack (and perhaps Andrew) go where Elvis (and, it seems, Jason) didn't want to go?

skeptic · Post: # 1105466Post **skeptic** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:45pm

GTHO wrote:So this bird was willing to let Grammy give her one ... then Lovett does his "business" and first thing she does is ring her boyfriend

I bet she got what she deserved right

The scary part is you think you're making a rational argument there

saintbrat · Post: # 1105470Post **saintbrat** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:48pm

mr six o'clock wrote:Found it interesting that the un-named player was wearing a black & white striped tie . perhaps he plays for footscray ?

He's an Athlete....

The County Court jury was told the man, an athlete, received two text messages from the woman on December 24, 2009.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/my-gi ... z1SAagLs9A

skeptic · Post: # 1105478Post **skeptic** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 10:13pm

GrumpyOne wrote:
skeptic wrote:consent to me is clearly not a grey area at all (based on what I've read which makes me no expert)

when she has been alert/conscious/not impaired, she denies black and blue that she was consenting

her behavior reflects that of someone intoxicated and makes aspects of it a bit cloudy but I think in cases like this, the pieces never fit together too perfectly

are ppl suggesting that she consented, changed her mind after, then decided to charge AL as a result of the regret..? Has happened in the past i think

Definately one of the options.

Pleased I am not on that jury..... guaranteed sleepless nights.

Grumpy one,

I'm not being critical here but I'd like you to explain your point of view as I'm having difficulty grasping your tone.

Whilst the scenario I highlighted above is something that I know for a fact does happen I fail to see any evidence of that being the case here... not that I'm privvy to anything.

Someone that would be willing to falsely cry rape and stand by that lie to the point of the innocent person going to jail... well it's fair to say that that person is an unbalanced individual.
More than likely they would have endured some kind of traumatic incident... most likely a sexual assualt in their own development already. With people like that, if the trauma is not addressed, dealt with, come to terms with etc you usually see it manifest in other ways... usually chaotic behavior.

Now again I don't know anything about this young lady but I've not read anything about her statement or behavior on the night to suggest any such thing.

Maybe I'm biased (don't think so though coz me personally I would have let AL continue playing until proven guilty [although I can see now why that wouldn't have worked so kudos to the club]) but I can't for the life of me see how people think there's shades of grey here... or sufficient doubt.

The chain of events seem to be as follows
- The group go put for drinks to a club or something
- The girl and AL may or may not have flirted together and kissed
- The girl becomes intoxicated
- The party decide to go to Gram's place
- The girl and her friend initially want to go home but decide for whatever reason to go to Gram's place
- Jason and her kiss and the observation is made that she is heavily intoxicated so she is put to bed
- Alone in the bedroom enters and alledgedly digitally assualts her, she gets her bearing together enough to tell him to leave or yell or something.
- She half heartedly attempts to get up but is seemingly too sedated and intoxicated and falls back asleep.
- She regains her self-awareness later to find that AL having sex with her.

It gets a bit hazy after that but she becomes distressed++, cries rape and attempts to text for help from someone she knows.

After crying rape, she has not at any point backed down or changed her mind, or suggested that there was some kind of consent given to the act of sex between her and AL.

Even if parts of her recollection of the events immediately following the more traumatic part of the story have changed over time due to the result of
a) her being traumatised
b) her being intoxicated

It doesn't matter. I see absolutely nothing to doubt the fact that she DID NOT consent to having sex with him.

A few years ago when I was working at the hospital, (I'm a psychiatric nurse)... a patient punched me in the head. Didn't knock me out but hurt me nonetheless.
It took me about 2 weeks to fully recount the events as they happened. For periods of time in the days that followed, I legitimately remembered things that didn't happen. I still knew I got punched in the head though.

Where's the confusion