Dustin Martin

[ripplug66]

“After reviewing CCTV footage and speaking to all parties involved, including numerous independent witnesses at the restaurant on the night, investigators determined that no criminal offence took place.”

I cant help but be a little miffed at this statement

Isn't it correct to say... Ummh yes it did, it was just decided that charges would not be pressed

Well they have spoken to people and seen the footage so I reckon they may have more information and without the women speaking I agree there could be no offence unless the media decide offences.

[saynta]

“After reviewing CCTV footage and speaking to all parties involved, including numerous independent witnesses at the restaurant on the night, investigators determined that no criminal offence took place.”

I cant help but be a little miffed at this statement

Isn't it correct to say... Ummh yes it did, it was just decided that charges would not be pressed

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dusti ... ltn9k.html

"After reviewing CCTV footage and speaking to all parties involved, including numerous independent witnesses at the restaurant on the night, investigators determined that no criminal offence took place.

"Police take all reports of violence towards women seriously and investigate all complaints thoroughly."

Victoria Police took over the investigation four days after the alleged incident took place at the Japanese restaurant.

The AFL came under fire for not initially reporting it to police.

In a statement issued on Tuesday night, the league said it "acknowledges Victoria Police for its investigation and will now resume its own enquiry, to determine if any action is required under the AFL's Rules around player conduct."

The AFL will decide on Wednesday whether to take any action against Martin.

Martin later apologised to the woman."


fiik

[degruch]

Given the witnessed frequent in-an-out of bathroom activity, unless Dusty was suffering from a bout of gastro, wouldn't the AFL be negligent in not testing for drugs immediately? Any news on this?

[dragit]

Made a juicy news piece though…

[#gosaintas]

What a waste of time and all that outrage. Laughably politically correct wowser world we live in these days. Don't forget to put your helmets and protective gear on over the summer break. Don't forget those life jackets.

[Dr Spaceman]

What a waste of time and all that outrage. Laughably politically correct wowser world we live in these days. Don't forget to put your helmets and protective gear on over the summer break. Don't forget those life jackets.

Thanks for the advice; much appreciated.

I will make sure I've got all that protective gear handy over the next few months.

Still...



...I think I may well get enraged and say something if a boozed up, drugged up, high profile, egotistical bogan thretatens to kill me or a member of my family with some Chinese eating utensils.

And I won't be worried about the political correctness or otherwise of doing so if that's the case.

[degruch]

I agree, screw the anti-PC brigade, certainly worth the outrage. But aside from that, surely this is at least first strike for Dusty? Am I the only person asking this question? Where's the statement from Richmond?

[ripplug66]

I agree, screw the anti-PC brigade, certainly worth the outrage. But aside from that, surely this is at least first strike for Dusty? Am I the only person asking this question? Where's the statement from Richmond?

First strike because a member of the public said something? I would hope we never resort to that.

[degruch]

I agree, screw the anti-PC brigade, certainly worth the outrage. But aside from that, surely this is at least first strike for Dusty? Am I the only person asking this question? Where's the statement from Richmond?

First strike because a member of the public said something? I would hope we never resort to that.

Engage eyeballs...

Given the witnessed frequent in-an-out of bathroom activity, unless Dusty was suffering from a bout of gastro, wouldn't the AFL be negligent in not testing for drugs immediately? Any news on this?

[ripplug66]

I agree, screw the anti-PC brigade, certainly worth the outrage. But aside from that, surely this is at least first strike for Dusty? Am I the only person asking this question? Where's the statement from Richmond?

First strike because a member of the public said something? I would hope we never resort to that.

Engage eyeballs...

Given the witnessed frequent in-an-out of bathroom activity, unless Dusty was suffering from a bout of gastro, wouldn't the AFL be negligent in not testing for drugs immediately? Any news on this?

I'm sorry I didn't realise I had to put both posts together. Anyway how do you know they didn't test or how do you know when they got the information? It may have been to late to test or when tested he was clear. Still think a person from the public saying stuff like that doesnt automatically mean we test.

[saynta]

No criminal offense. Does that mean he didn't
threaten to kill her after all and that she has recanted some or all of her earlier evidence?

[dragit]

No criminal offense. Does that mean he didn't
threaten to kill her after all and that she has recanted some or all of her earlier evidence?

I'm guessing that after viewing the footage and speaking with nearby diners, his conduct was considered closer to drunken d**khead rather than potential murderer.

I imagine that others interviewed would have verified that he did indeed say those things, but the seriousness of intent would be the key.

[markp]

No criminal offense. Does that mean he didn't
threaten to kill her after all and that she has recanted some or all of her earlier evidence?

I'm guessing that after viewing the footage and speaking with nearby diners, his conduct was considered closer to drunken d**khead rather than potential murderer.

I imagine that others interviewed would have verified that he did indeed say those things, but the seriousness of intent would be the key.

An earlier report said if you threaten to kill someone whether you mean it or not if the person fears for their life then you're screwed.

It wouldn't matter (surely) if footage showed he whispered it or ripped his shirt off and screamed it.

And I'd reckon if she had totally changed or recanted her story the report would have said so.

[dragit]

No criminal offense. Does that mean he didn't
threaten to kill her after all and that she has recanted some or all of her earlier evidence?

I'm guessing that after viewing the footage and speaking with nearby diners, his conduct was considered closer to drunken d**khead rather than potential murderer.

I imagine that others interviewed would have verified that he did indeed say those things, but the seriousness of intent would be the key.

An earlier report said if you threaten to kill someone whether you mean it or not if the person fears for their life then you're screwed.

It wouldn't matter (surely) if footage showed he whispered it or ripped his shirt off and screamed it.

And I'd reckon if she had totally changed or recanted her story the report would have said so.

I would have thought his demeanor would form quite a large part of assessing his intent, which this case would be based on if charges were laid.

[markp]

No criminal offense. Does that mean he didn't
threaten to kill her after all and that she has recanted some or all of her earlier evidence?

I'm guessing that after viewing the footage and speaking with nearby diners, his conduct was considered closer to drunken d**khead rather than potential murderer.

I imagine that others interviewed would have verified that he did indeed say those things, but the seriousness of intent would be the key.

An earlier report said if you threaten to kill someone whether you mean it or not if the person fears for their life then you're screwed.

It wouldn't matter (surely) if footage showed he whispered it or ripped his shirt off and screamed it.

And I'd reckon if she had totally changed or recanted her story the report would have said so.

I would have thought his demeanor would form quite a large part of assessing his intent, which this case would be based on if charges were laid.

Fair enough.

I'd say it mostly swung on her choice to escalate and make a statement or not.

The Herald Sun understands Martin has been told police will no longer pursue the criminal matter after the woman involved decided not to make a statement.

The woman said she wanted to protect herself from being identified at any potential future court hearing.

But she said the AFL and Richmond should now press ahead with their inquiry which she has co-operated with.

[Moods]

I'd say you were spot on markp.

[dragit]

the AFL and Richmond should now press ahead with their inquiry which she has co-operated with.

Pretty difficult for Richmond and the AFL to press ahead when they don't have the authority to do the job of the police.

From what I can gather, the AFL determined that her claims were serious enough to warrant a police investigation, so referred the incident on. If she isn't prepared to make a statement, it will be very difficult to hold him to account, what outcome she is hoping for from further AFL-Richmond investigation? d**khead tax I'm assuming, which no-one could argue with…

[markp]

the AFL and Richmond should now press ahead with their inquiry which she has co-operated with.

Pretty difficult for Richmond and the AFL to press ahead when they don't have the authority to do the job of the police.

From what I can gather, the AFL determined that her claims were serious enough to warrant a police investigation, so referred the incident on. If she isn't prepared to make a statement, it will be very difficult to hold him to account, what outcome she is hoping for from further AFL-Richmond investigation? d**khead tax I'm assuming, which no-one could argue with…

Really?

Firstly, I wouldn't blame any woman or person for not wanting to pursue something like this in court. Time and again we hear that the court (and add media here) experience was comparable to being assaulted all over again. And I don't think many women who have pursued these sorts of things against afl players have not lived to regret it.

Secondly, while the rfc and afl may want to brush this under the carpet, brand protection also dictates that they be seen to be taking this incident and this issue very seriously.

Thirdly, if he was an executive or employee at any high profile company and he'd done this and it got out he'd have very likely been sacked by now.

Fourthly, it could also just be that the woman doesn't think the incident warrants a criminal conviction, but that it does warrant serious consequences.

[Moods]

Am I to assume dragit that you thought the woman unwise for intervening, yet also question why she hasn't made a statement? Why would she subject herself to that? The footy nuffies have probably already given her hell on social media and the like. And she has already received a taste of the sort of support the AFL are likely to provide when she laid the initial complaint.

[Moods]

Am I to assume dragit that you thought the woman unwise for intervening, yet also question why she hasn't made a statement? Why would she subject herself to that? The footy nuffies have probably already given her hell on social media and the like. And she has already received a taste of the sort of support the AFL are likely to provide when she laid the initial complaint.

[Moods]

Am I to assume dragit that you thought the woman unwise for intervening, yet also question why she hasn't made a statement? Why would she subject herself to that? The footy nuffies have probably already given her hell on social media and the like. And she has already received a taste of the sort of support the AFL are likely to provide when she laid the initial complaint.

[To the top]

A couple of things on these matters.

1) Domestic violence includes a woman saying she is afraid of someone or something. That is all it takes to make the allegation, an allegation which (normally) plays out to their benefit in The Family Court of Australia.

2) In a Court the presumption is with the description given by the woman, no matter the husband denies any such description (and where it is one person's word against the other).

That is where a Family Report, attended by the Family Court of Australia and under Order of that Court, can be so vital in a father's application for the principal parenting of the children because the children are given the opportunity to speak to their relationships with each of the parents respectively and on the circumstances as they were in the (then former) family home.

In the Family Court of Australia, unlike any other jurisdiction, the defense "X number of people lived in that home, so please ask because I" (the father) "have nothing to hide. All allegations made against me are false and knowingly false".

And then, in my case, the game changed in the jurisdiction that mattered being The Family Court of Australia.

Ahead of the Family Report issuing to the parties by Order of the Court, the Family Court of Australia was a most, most difficult place for a father to be - and in regards other jurisdictions, it was impossible because of (cultivated) gender presumptions.

These are the facts.

[dragit]

Firstly, I wouldn't blame any woman or person for not wanting to pursue something like this in court. Time and again we hear that the court (and add media here) experience was comparable to being assaulted all over again. And I don't think many women who have pursued these sorts of things against afl players have not lived to regret it.

I wouldn't blame any person either, totally understand that reliving the story can refresh an incident. However as this person has retold the story in great detail on prime-time TV, to the AFL and various media outlets, I don't think she is afraid to revisit the incident.

Secondly, while the rfc and afl may want to brush this under the carpet, brand protection also dictates that they be seen to be taking this incident and this issue very seriously.

So she is concerned about brand protection?
I think the fact that they referred the incident onto police indicates that they take the allegations pretty seriously & I have no doubt there will be some punishment. If they'd tried to just dela with it in-house, people would be screaming cover-up.

Again what are the AFL going to press on with after the police have concluded that:
“After reviewing CCTV footage and speaking to all parties involved, including numerous independent witnesses at the restaurant on the night, investigators determined that no criminal offence took place.”

Thirdly, if he was an executive or employee at any high profile company and he'd done this and it got out he'd have very likely been sacked by now.

Actually, if it was an executive we probably would have never heard about it as it wouldn't be a channel 7 news piece and I doubt she would threaten to or actually ring the BHP HR department. Then if he was sacked and it was found that no offence took place, his company would be facing a massive unfair dismissal suit.

Fourthly, it could also just be that the woman doesn't think the incident warrants a criminal conviction, but that it does warrant serious consequences.

All the AFL can do is make this guy miss games of football and pay a fine - which probably has a cap due to contracts.

If she is claiming that she genuinely felt that her life was being threatened, then surely this punishment isn't enough?

[dragit]

Am I to assume dragit that you thought the woman unwise for intervening, yet also question why she hasn't made a statement? Why would she subject herself to that? The footy nuffies have probably already given her hell on social media and the like. And she has already received a taste of the sort of support the AFL are likely to provide when she laid the initial complaint.

I think it's been pretty unanimous that most people would expect a bad reaction from telling a person in Martin's state to pipe down - most people wouldn't do it, so in that regard it is probably an unwise thing to do, though as pointed out, you have the right do many things.

And no, I don't think she's afraid of media attention… basically everything I have read so far has widely condemned his behavior and supported her position, in both social and main-stream media. She wants to shame him and make him miss games of football - and I'm okay with that, he's a d**khead behaving atrociously… But it doesn't sound like there is a criminal case in this incident, so she would be wasting her time making a statement. (imo)

[To the top]

Yes, employers need to be very, very careful.

I had the false allegations made against me being the subject of my employers "interviewing" of me and casting dispersion including because of their presumption of guilt based on gender.

The toxic nature introduced to the work place saw my final 20 odd months in employment (before ultimately resigning from employment) covered by Medical Certificates.

Mind you, the Family Report concludes "The mother suggests, however, that the father's job tenure is currently very precarious".

Subsequently, at the County Court, it was 10/10 to me - including that the legal costs for both parties were for the defendant (my former employer, and where their costs were very significant with their "army" of Senior Counsel).

The Defendant was a significant public Company, where I had held a very senior position and where I had contributed to superannuation since joining from the completion of my formal studies as a young adult.

So, guess why the other party were trying to have my employment terminated by making those false accusations to my employer, an employer who then reacted inappropriately?

At the Family Court of Australia, the property Orders followed the custody Orders, which were for me.

This encompasses but some of the issues that need to be addressed in regards Domestic Violence - because every action results in a reaction and some of those reactions, because of dis-enfranchisement by the "system", may be inappropriate and seriously in-appropriate.