Amazing!
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lovet ... 1hwii.html
Not guilty!
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9054
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 353 times
-
GrumpyOne
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8163
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
- Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne
Speaking at a press conference this afternoon, St Kilda’s chief excutive Michael Nettlefold emphasised that the club’s decision was not based on "whether Lovett was innocent or guilty of the charge".
"That was not the club’s decision-making process and it is for the court to decide," he said.
"During Andrew’s short tenure with the club, on a number of occasions he engaged in actions which were failures to comply with our standards of expected behavioural conduct.
"These failures related to his training commitments and a failure to contact club officials in a situation where he should have done so.
"We simply could not ignore such breaches, nor could we ignore the damage being done to St Kilda’s reputation and decided unanimously as a club to terminate Andrew Lovett’s employment with the Saints.
"This is undoubtedly a difficult time for all concerned, most particularly Andrew and the woman who brought the complaint to Victoria Police."
Nettlefold said Lovett had failed to contact team officials about failures relating to training commitments, but cited legal reasons for refusing to answer questions relating to contractual negotiations and specifics of breaches that led to Lovett’s dismissal.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... z1T5WOGrMA
"That was not the club’s decision-making process and it is for the court to decide," he said.
"During Andrew’s short tenure with the club, on a number of occasions he engaged in actions which were failures to comply with our standards of expected behavioural conduct.
"These failures related to his training commitments and a failure to contact club officials in a situation where he should have done so.
"We simply could not ignore such breaches, nor could we ignore the damage being done to St Kilda’s reputation and decided unanimously as a club to terminate Andrew Lovett’s employment with the Saints.
"This is undoubtedly a difficult time for all concerned, most particularly Andrew and the woman who brought the complaint to Victoria Police."
Nettlefold said Lovett had failed to contact team officials about failures relating to training commitments, but cited legal reasons for refusing to answer questions relating to contractual negotiations and specifics of breaches that led to Lovett’s dismissal.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... z1T5WOGrMA
Having sat on a rape trial in the county court in the last couple of months I have to say it does not amaze me one iota.
The thing is that the great majority of people who end up on juries are thick as bricks and easily swayed by clever defense barristers and their seeds of reasonable doubt. Which is not to say the verdict in this case is necessarily wrong - I have not followed it at all. Just that it is very difficult to get a conviction in a rape case full stop, let alone one where there is alcohol involved.
The thing is that the great majority of people who end up on juries are thick as bricks and easily swayed by clever defense barristers and their seeds of reasonable doubt. Which is not to say the verdict in this case is necessarily wrong - I have not followed it at all. Just that it is very difficult to get a conviction in a rape case full stop, let alone one where there is alcohol involved.
St Kilda Social Club member since 1996
-
perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9054
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 353 times
My "amazement" at the decision has nothing to do with my view of guilt or innocence. I never heard one piece of evidence, nor did I see the alleged victim. Whatever flaws the jury system might have, it's a hell of a lot better than any alternative, especially a Herald Sun vote line. Clearly, the jury was able to put the glare of massive publicity, the tabloid assumption of guilt and the actual evidence into proper perspective. Hence my amazement. Mind you, this will only be part one of the saga, the end of the beginning.
-
saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
with Williams today retiring it would appear that hawthorn are the only winners of the 3 way trade- who did they get for Pick 16?
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
-
older saint
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3385
- Joined: Wed 12 Sep 2007 5:30pm
- Has thanked: 172 times
- Been thanked: 519 times
No surprise at decision.
The criminal legal system requires an acquital if not beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore Lovett does not have to prove innocence but rather that there was a plausable explanation of events which MAY be true.
The victim in this case was drunk and therefore it was always going to be a tough gig to get a guilty verdict.
Lovett's past cannot be bought in unless character comes in to it which they smartly did not bring and he did not even take the stand.
I do not know what happened or if he is inocent or guilty but remember in this case and all others before it Not Guilty does not mean Innocent.
Expect a civil Out of court settlement in the future.
The criminal legal system requires an acquital if not beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore Lovett does not have to prove innocence but rather that there was a plausable explanation of events which MAY be true.
The victim in this case was drunk and therefore it was always going to be a tough gig to get a guilty verdict.
Lovett's past cannot be bought in unless character comes in to it which they smartly did not bring and he did not even take the stand.
I do not know what happened or if he is inocent or guilty but remember in this case and all others before it Not Guilty does not mean Innocent.
Expect a civil Out of court settlement in the future.
-
Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
not really. people think "reasonable doubt" means the slightest bit of doubt. if this was the case noone would get convicted. juries get it right more than they get it wrong. unless u were in the court - u cant comment. so if the jury said not guilty hes probably not guilty.older saint wrote:No surprise at decision.
The criminal legal system requires an acquital if not beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore Lovett does not have to prove innocence but rather that there was a plausable explanation of events which MAY be true.
The victim in this case was drunk and therefore it was always going to be a tough gig to get a guilty verdict.
Lovett's past cannot be bought in unless character comes in to it which they smartly did not bring and he did not even take the stand.
I do not know what happened or if he is inocent or guilty but remember in this case and all others before it Not Guilty does not mean Innocent.
Expect a civil Out of court settlement in the future.
Um. Yes, we can. And no, mate, it doesn't mean that - necessarily.Con Gorozidis wrote: unless u were in the court - u cant comment. so if the jury said not guilty hes probably not guilty.
Rape is about the hardest thing in the world to prove. You could trust me on that.
A lot of the time, rapists walk. Particularly when there are circumstances such as alcohol intoxication. In fact it's a much larger problem in our society than people realise or wish to admit.
But I digress. Not surprised at the verdict. Glad St Kilda sacked him.
Last edited by Lennon on Mon 25 Jul 2011 3:54pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
saintspremiers
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
-
Little Dozer
- Club Player
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Tue 11 Jul 2006 4:44pm
- Location: Forward Pocket, Outer side, Linton Street end or bay 38 Waverley
-
Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
yeah sorry. thats what i was trying to say. i meant to preface it with "based on the available evidence" juries get it right.Lennon wrote:Um. Yes, we can. And no, mate, it doesn't mean that - necessarily.Con Gorozidis wrote: unless u were in the court - u cant comment. so if the jury said not guilty hes probably not guilty.
Rape is about the hardest thing in the world to prove. You could trust me on that.
A lot of the time, rapists walk. Particularly when there are circumstances such as alcohol intoxication. In fact it's a much larger problem in our society than people realise or wish to admit.
But I digress. Not surprised at the verdict. Glad St Kilda sacked him.
there were a few questions that were raised - rightly or wrongly.
e.g
if u are getting raped do u text someone?
gram and the other girl testified they left him on the bedt talking with her.
im not saying he did it or didnt - i meant to say. under the circumstances - enought doubt was created and a jury probably had no choice but to let him walk..
older saint wrote:No surprise at decision.
The criminal legal system requires an acquital if not beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore Lovett does not have to prove innocence but rather that there was a plausable explanation of events which MAY be true.
The victim in this case was drunk and therefore it was always going to be a tough gig to get a guilty verdict.
Lovett's past cannot be bought in unless character comes in to it which they smartly did not bring and he did not even take the stand.
I do not know what happened or if he is inocent or guilty but remember in this case and all others before it Not Guilty does not mean Innocent.
Expect a civil Out of court settlement in the future.
careful you will have the internet bullies down on you... even calling your comments churlish ffs
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Lennon wrote:Um. Yes, we can. And no, mate, it doesn't mean that - necessarily.Con Gorozidis wrote: unless u were in the court - u cant comment. so if the jury said not guilty hes probably not guilty.
Rape is about the hardest thing in the world to prove. You could trust me on that.
A lot of the time, rapists walk. Particularly when there are circumstances such as alcohol intoxication. In fact it's a much larger problem in our society than people realise or wish to admit.
But I digress. Not surprised at the verdict. Glad St Kilda sacked him.
+1...
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
stinger wrote:older saint wrote:No surprise at decision.
The criminal legal system requires an acquital if not beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore Lovett does not have to prove innocence but rather that there was a plausable explanation of events which MAY be true.
The victim in this case was drunk and therefore it was always going to be a tough gig to get a guilty verdict.
Lovett's past cannot be bought in unless character comes in to it which they smartly did not bring and he did not even take the stand.
I do not know what happened or if he is inocent or guilty but remember in this case and all others before it Not Guilty does not mean Innocent.
Expect a civil Out of court settlement in the future.
careful you will have the internet bullies down on you... even calling your comments churlish ffs
Churlish... hehehe. I gotta add that to the vocab.