Not guilty!

[GrumpyOne]

i think the deal we cut with him is watertight. he wont bring that up i think. as far as the saints are concerned this whole horrid affair is over. done . dusted.

God...... I hope so.

They paid him 'go away' money for a reason, if they didn't get it in writing and set in stone that it meant he would stay away, they need to be shot.

Absolutely.

[Dr Spaceman]

i think the deal we cut with him is watertight. he wont bring that up i think. as far as the saints are concerned this whole horrid affair is over. done . dusted.

God...... I hope so.

They paid him 'go away' money for a reason, if they didn't get it in writing and set in stone that it meant he would stay away, they need to be shot.

Absolutely.

At the time of the deal were the Saints aware there would be a court case? Absolutely.

At the time of the deal were the Saints aware there could be an acquittal in that court case? Absolutely.

Why do some people think yesterday's decision spells trouble for our club?

[NoMore]

Totally agree with Mr six o'clock

Yes he may have been found not guilty but the way he behaved was deplorable. I hate the way the court and the not guilty verdict makes people think that his behaviour was acceptable. Whether you think he was guilty or not you have to agree that any encounter which leaves a girl who is so drunk she needs to be helped just to go to bed sobbing in a hall way crying rape is a disgrace.

The sacking of Andrew Lovett from Stkilda made me proud. I have no idea about M&M but if they behaved in the same way well they should have gone to. It is time in general that more people took a stand against this sort of behaviour.

Lovett has prior history of violence against women and maybe if the courts take it seriously and his employers took it seriously the first time we would never have ended up here. He clearly thought he was above the law and i am sure he is not the only one

[GrumpyOne]

Totally agree with Mr six o'clock

Yes he may have been found not guilty but the way he behaved was deplorable. I hate the way the court and the not guilty verdict makes people think that his behaviour was acceptable. Whether you think he was guilty or not you have to agree that any encounter which leaves a girl who is so drunk she needs to be helped just to go to bed sobbing in a hall way crying rape is a disgrace.

The sacking of Andrew Lovett from Stkilda made me proud. I have no idea about M&M but if they behaved in the same way well they should have gone to. It is time in general that more people took a stand against this sort of behaviour.

Lovett has prior history of violence against women and maybe if the courts take it seriously and his employers took it seriously the first time we would never have ended up here. He clearly thought he was above the law and i am sure he is not the only one

I can't think of anyone who has posted that his behaviour was acceptable. At the very best it has been described as understandable, which is a long way from acceptance.

He was tried for rape and found not guilty. His previous and future conduct was quite rightly ruled out as inadmissable in court. That is our law, and for all its faults and foibles has served us well for hundreds of years.

Lovett has not got off scott-free. His reputation has been sullied, both by the accusation and the evidence presented in court. The Hun's dredging up of past misdemeanors has removed all doubt about his conduct. He will remain a rapist in the public's viewpoint, rightly or wrongly.

There is a chance that every bit of his story is true, but that will mean diddly-squat to public opinion. Just goes to show just how easily you can be brought down by the evidence of a drunk.

[St. Luke]

Regardless of guilty or not, like in the case of Milne and Joey (more so for Milne) he has been labeled forever more as a rapist.

The club supposedly didn't sack him primarily because of the rape case, but instead for other indiscretions leading up to it. The club worded the reasons for his dismissal very carefully from memory. Still, I wouldn't put it past Lovett to have a crack back at the SKFC. I'm sure there's more than enough dodgy barristers out there looking to make a quick buck out of it.

[Zac Attack]

Regardless of guilty or not, like in the case of Milne and Joey (more so for Milne) he has been labeled forever more as a rapist.

The club supposedly didn't sack him primarily because of the rape case, but instead for other indiscretions leading up to it. The club worded the reasons for his dismissal very carefully from memory. Still, I wouldn't put it past Lovett to have a crack back at the SKFC. I'm sure there's more than enough dodgy barristers out there looking to make a quick buck out of it.

Nobody could possibly believe that Lovett was not sacked partially due to being charged with rape.

If he turned up as poorly as management was suggesting he would have been both internally and publicly lambasted for being a fat s*** and from that he would have improved.

[St. Luke]

I don't deny that they got rid of him because of that, but from memory the way it was worded was it wasn't the deciding factor on the reason the club turfed him out. At that stage he was accused of rape, and that was all. I'm sure the club realized the implications of sacking him should by some miracle he was found innocent.

Just to add: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -o6le.html

It states it there.

[Dr Spaceman]

For all those little worriers out there:

"Lovett, who could be a target of new club Greater Western Sydney under Lovett's former Essendon coach Kevin Sheedy, will not take any legal action against the Saints for unfair dismissal.

"We settled with St Kilda and that means we all move forward with good faith," McDonald said.

"I think it's best we leave that one."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/a ... 6101612858

[NoMore]

Totally agree with Mr six o'clock

Yes he may have been found not guilty but the way he behaved was deplorable. I hate the way the court and the not guilty verdict makes people think that his behaviour was acceptable. Whether you think he was guilty or not you have to agree that any encounter which leaves a girl who is so drunk she needs to be helped just to go to bed sobbing in a hall way crying rape is a disgrace.

The sacking of Andrew Lovett from Stkilda made me proud. I have no idea about M&M but if they behaved in the same way well they should have gone to. It is time in general that more people took a stand against this sort of behaviour.

Lovett has prior history of violence against women and maybe if the courts take it seriously and his employers took it seriously the first time we would never have ended up here. He clearly thought he was above the law and i am sure he is not the only one

I can't think of anyone who has posted that his behaviour was acceptable. At the very best it has been described as understandable, which is a long way from acceptance.

He was tried for rape and found not guilty. His previous and future conduct was quite rightly ruled out as inadmissable in court. That is our law, and for all its faults and foibles has served us well for hundreds of years.

Lovett has not got off scott-free. His reputation has been sullied, both by the accusation and the evidence presented in court. The Hun's dredging up of past misdemeanors has removed all doubt about his conduct. He will remain a rapist in the public's viewpoint, rightly or wrongly.

There is a chance that every bit of his story is true, but that will mean diddly-squat to public opinion. Just goes to show just how easily you can be brought down by the evidence of a drunk.

I am not saying that people in here are the ones saying that his behaviour is acceptable it was more a commentary on the way our society works. I know that is the way our legal system works and yes it serves us reasonably well but i do find it interesting in here how little sypathy there is for women. I know we all love our footy and that most of us idolise the players we love but it has to be said that they do get away with a lot more than the average punter and yes they do put up with alot of scrutiny but as Lovett said he could have had lots of other girls that night. Well why didn't he. Problem solved

[GrumpyOne]

Lovett said he could have had lots of other girls that night. Well why didn't he. Problem solved

Perhaps she came on to him?

Only two people know what happened that night, and one was apparently too drunk to fully remember.

[NoMore]

Lovett said he could have had lots of other girls that night. Well why didn't he. Problem solved

Perhaps she came on to him?

Only two people know what happened that night, and one was apparently too drunk to fully remember.

Too drunk to fully remember but sober enough to take advantage of. I think as a society we should be shooting for a higher set of moral values. If she was so drunk she couldn't remember he could have been a gentlemen and said maybe another time.

After all he could have anyone he wanted. Thats what he said. Just as you say she is a drunk people make the beds they lie in and unfortunatly he has made his

[dragit]

Lovett said he could have had lots of other girls that night. Well why didn't he. Problem solved

Perhaps she came on to him?

Only two people know what happened that night, and one was apparently too drunk to fully remember.

Too drunk to fully remember but sober enough to take advantage of. I think as a society we should be shooting for a higher set of moral values. If she was so drunk she couldn't remember he could have been a gentlemen and said maybe another time.

After all he could have anyone he wanted. Thats what he said. Just as you say she is a drunk people make the beds they lie in and unfortunatly he has made his

So how drunk was Lovett?
How many drinks?

[NoMore]

So how drunk was Lovett?
How many drinks?[/quote]

Does it really matter. I find it amazing the way people view women in society. Good old fashioned chivalry is obviously long dead. If this was ur daughter or sister would u care how drunk lovett was or would u expect him to do what was right. Yes you would be disapointed in the way she had behaved but you would hope the guy would do what was right. Unfortunately this is not utopia as i know and it is becoming increasingly rare for people do what is right rather than what is good for them.

You people can think what u like of me but in the same situation i would not have done what he did. If she wanted him she would have still wanted him in the morning or the next afternoon. Most rape cases are just very unfortunate full stop. They are unfortunate for the victim whether the alleged is found guilty or not and they are unfortunate for the alleged if they are found not guilty as they are tarnished for life.

i just find the situation sad all round

[dragit]

So how drunk was Lovett?
How many drinks?

Does it really matter. I find it amazing the way people view women in society. Good old fashioned chivalry is obviously long dead. If this was ur daughter or sister would u care how drunk lovett was or would u expect him to do what was right. Yes you would be disapointed in the way she had behaved but you would hope the guy would do what was right. Unfortunately this is not utopia as i know and it is becoming increasingly rare for people do what is right rather than what is good for them.

You people can think what u like of me but in the same situation i would not have done what he did. If she wanted him she would have still wanted him in the morning or the next afternoon. Most rape cases are just very unfortunate full stop. They are unfortunate for the victim whether the alleged is found guilty or not and they are unfortunate for the alleged if they are found not guilty as they are tarnished for life.

i just find the situation sad all round

Yes it does matter, what if a man is more drunk than the woman?
Both too impaired to make a good judgement, you are suggesting that the man should always be the better person in that situation.
I think you're reading into people's responses a bit too much, I doubt anyone would claim to act like Lovett did, of course it sounds completely dodgy. But the fact is none of us know what happened, it seems as though the legal system has failed here, but we do not know.
We can all have opinions about his character and behavior, but that's all they are. I think you'll find that most of us feel similarly, but it doesn't mean that we are right.

[NoMore]

So how drunk was Lovett?
How many drinks?

Does it really matter. I find it amazing the way people view women in society. Good old fashioned chivalry is obviously long dead. If this was ur daughter or sister would u care how drunk lovett was or would u expect him to do what was right. Yes you would be disapointed in the way she had behaved but you would hope the guy would do what was right. Unfortunately this is not utopia as i know and it is becoming increasingly rare for people do what is right rather than what is good for them.

You people can think what u like of me but in the same situation i would not have done what he did. If she wanted him she would have still wanted him in the morning or the next afternoon. Most rape cases are just very unfortunate full stop. They are unfortunate for the victim whether the alleged is found guilty or not and they are unfortunate for the alleged if they are found not guilty as they are tarnished for life.

i just find the situation sad all round

Yes it does matter, what if a man is more drunk than the woman?
Both too impaired to make a good judgement, you are suggesting that the man should always be the better person in that situation.
I think you're reading into people's responses a bit too much, I doubt anyone would claim to act like Lovett did, of course it sounds completely dodgy. But the fact is none of us know what happened, it seems as though the legal system has failed here, but we do not know.
We can all have opinions about his character and behavior, but that's all they are. I think you'll find that most of us feel similarly, but it doesn't mean that we are right.

I suppose i do think that the man should always be the better person. I know this is not what happens in real life but i am old fashioned and that is what i believe.

[GrumpyOne]

I suppose i do think that the man should always be the better person. I know this is not what happens in real life but i am old fashioned and that is what i believe.

Why is it always encumbent on the male to show restraint?

There are two parties involved in a relationship, both have equal responsibilities.

And before I get jumped on, I'm not referring specifically to the Lovett case, just life in general.

[dragit]

I suppose i do think that the man should always be the better person. I know this is not what happens in real life but i am old fashioned and that is what i believe.

I think chivalry has little place in a world of equal opportunity…
This will never excuse taking advantage of an inebriated person, of any gender.

[NoMore]

I suppose i do think that the man should always be the better person. I know this is not what happens in real life but i am old fashioned and that is what i believe.

Why is it always encumbent on the male to show restraint?

There are two parties involved in a relationship, both have equal responsibilities.

And before I get jumped on, I'm not referring specifically to the Lovett case, just life in general.

here goes and i know everyone will jump on me here.

But it is our responsibility to show restraint becausse it is my belief that it is human nature to protect. The same way we should give to the poor and help out after a tragedy we should try and protect those whom we are stronger than or are more fortunate than or anything. Please don't jump on me and call me a sexist. I am not. I believe women are just as capable as men and in some cases more. But men are stronger that is just life. Do we honestly think this girl could have fought Lovett off even if she was sober and he was drunk.

Oh and another thing don't get me wrong i understand there are many cases where women are the abusers in a relationship and i believe this is just as wrong. In this relationship they are the stronger and therefor should be the protector.

By the way i was reading the article on The Age website just then and i know that u never believe what u read in the media but for the life of me if the SMS was the big thing that got him off they were arguing about 10 mins after a ight of drinking where she was as good as passed out. They did submit any facts about his past history with women and never submitted the fact that he was so hurt by all this that he rang a girl 2 hours later to have sex. Whom for some reason the prosecution decided not to call as a witness

He still maybe not guilty but it doesn't sound like the Jury even got part of the story let alone the whole story

[Dr Spaceman]

I suppose i do think that the man should always be the better person. I know this is not what happens in real life but i am old fashioned and that is what i believe.

Why is it always encumbent on the male to show restraint?

There are two parties involved in a relationship, both have equal responsibilities.

And before I get jumped on, I'm not referring specifically to the Lovett case, just life in general.

here goes and i know everyone will jump on me here.

But it is our responsibility to show restraint becausse it is my belief that it is human nature to protect. The same way we should give to the poor and help out after a tragedy we should try and protect those whom we are stronger than or are more fortunate than or anything. Please don't jump on me and call me a sexist. I am not. I believe women are just as capable as men and in some cases more. But men are stronger that is just life. Do we honestly think this girl could have fought Lovett off even if she was sober and he was drunk.

Oh and another thing don't get me wrong i understand there are many cases where women are the abusers in a relationship and i believe this is just as wrong. In this relationship they are the stronger and therefor should be the protector.

By the way i was reading the article on The Age website just then and i know that u never believe what u read in the media but for the life of me if the SMS was the big thing that got him off they were arguing about 10 mins after a ight of drinking where she was as good as passed out. They did submit any facts about his past history with women and never submitted the fact that he was so hurt by all this that he rang a girl 2 hours later to have sex. Whom for some reason the prosecution decided not to call as a witness

He still maybe not guilty but it doesn't sound like the Jury even got part of the story let alone the whole story

Isn't all this "people jumping on people" stuff the reason we get cases like this in the first instance?

[NoMore]

I suppose i do think that the man should always be the better person. I know this is not what happens in real life but i am old fashioned and that is what i believe.

Why is it always encumbent on the male to show restraint?

There are two parties involved in a relationship, both have equal responsibilities.

And before I get jumped on, I'm not referring specifically to the Lovett case, just life in general.

here goes and i know everyone will jump on me here.

But it is our responsibility to show restraint becausse it is my belief that it is human nature to protect. The same way we should give to the poor and help out after a tragedy we should try and protect those whom we are stronger than or are more fortunate than or anything. Please don't jump on me and call me a sexist. I am not. I believe women are just as capable as men and in some cases more. But men are stronger that is just life. Do we honestly think this girl could have fought Lovett off even if she was sober and he was drunk.

Oh and another thing don't get me wrong i understand there are many cases where women are the abusers in a relationship and i believe this is just as wrong. In this relationship they are the stronger and therefor should be the protector.

By the way i was reading the article on The Age website just then and i know that u never believe what u read in the media but for the life of me if the SMS was the big thing that got him off they were arguing about 10 mins after a ight of drinking where she was as good as passed out. They did submit any facts about his past history with women and never submitted the fact that he was so hurt by all this that he rang a girl 2 hours later to have sex. Whom for some reason the prosecution decided not to call as a witness

He still maybe not guilty but it doesn't sound like the Jury even got part of the story let alone the whole story

Isn't all this "people jumping on people" stuff the reason we get cases like this in the first instance?

Very good

[dragit]

here goes and i know everyone will jump on me here.

But it is our responsibility to show restraint becausse it is my belief that it is human nature to protect. The same way we should give to the poor and help out after a tragedy we should try and protect those whom we are stronger than or are more fortunate than or anything. Please don't jump on me and call me a sexist. I am not. I believe women are just as capable as men and in some cases more. But men are stronger that is just life. Do we honestly think this girl could have fought Lovett off even if she was sober and he was drunk.

Oh and another thing don't get me wrong i understand there are many cases where women are the abusers in a relationship and i believe this is just as wrong. In this relationship they are the stronger and therefor should be the protector.

By the way i was reading the article on The Age website just then and i know that u never believe what u read in the media but for the life of me if the SMS was the big thing that got him off they were arguing about 10 mins after a ight of drinking where she was as good as passed out. They did submit any facts about his past history with women and never submitted the fact that he was so hurt by all this that he rang a girl 2 hours later to have sex. Whom for some reason the prosecution decided not to call as a witness

He still maybe not guilty but it doesn't sound like the Jury even got part of the story let alone the whole story

No worries, not jumping on you… just my thoughts… devils advocasy…
It is human nature to reproduce, therefor seduce… this trait is so strong that at times it can override moral judgment. It is a sense of morals that blocks natural urges…

The evidence you have talked about was judged as prejudicial, a person should only be judged on the actual incident. I stole a lolly when I was young, if I am accused of stealing a car should this previous example be considered?

What if Lovett was so distraught at the events that he called a close friend to comfort him, he breaks down recounting his story, they are both still alcohol affected and a sexual encounter ensues… it might not be something that you would do, but that doesn't mean that he is guilty of the accusations…

(i have no idea what actually happened)

[NoMore]

here goes and i know everyone will jump on me here.

But it is our responsibility to show restraint becausse it is my belief that it is human nature to protect. The same way we should give to the poor and help out after a tragedy we should try and protect those whom we are stronger than or are more fortunate than or anything. Please don't jump on me and call me a sexist. I am not. I believe women are just as capable as men and in some cases more. But men are stronger that is just life. Do we honestly think this girl could have fought Lovett off even if she was sober and he was drunk.

Oh and another thing don't get me wrong i understand there are many cases where women are the abusers in a relationship and i believe this is just as wrong. In this relationship they are the stronger and therefor should be the protector.

By the way i was reading the article on The Age website just then and i know that u never believe what u read in the media but for the life of me if the SMS was the big thing that got him off they were arguing about 10 mins after a ight of drinking where she was as good as passed out. They did submit any facts about his past history with women and never submitted the fact that he was so hurt by all this that he rang a girl 2 hours later to have sex. Whom for some reason the prosecution decided not to call as a witness

He still maybe not guilty but it doesn't sound like the Jury even got part of the story let alone the whole story

No worries, not jumping on you… just my thoughts… devils advocasy…
It is human nature to reproduce, therefor seduce… this trait is so strong that at times it can override moral judgment. It is a sense of morals that blocks natural urges…

The evidence you have talked about was judged as prejudicial, a person should only be judged on the actual incident. I stole a lolly when I was young, if I am accused of stealing a car should this previous example be considered?

What if Lovett was so distraught at the events that he called a close friend to comfort him, he breaks down recounting his story, they are both still alcohol affected and a sexual encounter ensues… it might not be something that you would do, but that doesn't mean that he is guilty of the accusations…

(i have no idea what actually happened)

I have no idea either just going on what i have read and we all know how reliable that is but i cannot believe his attidudes to women would be irrelavant to this case but i may be wrong. If you stole a motor bike a year ago and then were accused of stealing a car i would think that would provide some relavance

Also on side note i don't see why the court is blocking this evidence. the defenses whole argument was the the girl was a liar and if she had lied in the past they would have been allowed to bring that up. It seems the "innocent man" was protected more than the victim

[GrumpyOne]

He still maybe not guilty but it doesn't sound like the Jury even got part of the story let alone the whole story

From what I read it would seem that the prosecutor left absolutely nothing in the wig room when it came to prosecuting Lovett.

The jury decided on the presented evidence. If the prosecutor left something out that would be ruled admissable, I'd be very surprised indeed.

The law exists for everyone equally.

[GrumpyOne]

It seems the "innocent man" was protected more than the victim

Alledged victim.

And our law is that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Mr Magic]

It seems the "innocent man" was protected more than the victim

Alledged victim.

And our law is that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And now that Lovett has been found 'not guilty' does that make his accuser (previously the 'alleged victim') just a 'liar' now?

Her accusations have been 'tested' in court and found 'wanting'.

Should Lovett now sue her for defamation?
Afterall, the only reason he was charged were her allegations, now found to be 'wanting'.
Those allegations have led Lovett to be pilloried, abused and generally despised.

Surely she bears some responsilbility for the shameful way Lovett has been treated as a result of her (and only her) allegations?

And why shouldn't she now be named/shamed for falsely accusing Lovett?
Surely she now deserves to be put under public scrutiny?
Afterall her 'false accusations' have led to Lovett's current predicament.

Of course I don't agree with the above, but isn't it the natural progression to the 'he was found not guilty so he didn't do anything wrong' argument?

Just like OJ was found 'not guilty' and therefore is 'innocent' of killing his wife Nicole and her friend Ronald Goldman.