Lovett interviewed by Police

markp · Post: # 868969Post **markp** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 6:42pm

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/st-kil ... 5814797650

St Kilda star Andrew Lovett spends two hours with detectives at South Melbourne CIU

Anthony Dowsley, Mark Buttler From: Herald Sun December 30, 2009 5:48PM

AFL star Andrew Lovett has been questioned by police over the rape allegations which have stunned the game and seen him banished from playing.

The new St Kilda recruit today gave his version of events to detectives from South Melbourne criminal investigation unit.

A relaxed-looking Lovett arrived at their offices in Normanby Rd with prominent barrister David Grace QC at 1pm.

Lovett, however, spoke to the detectives alone, spending more than two hours at their offices.

..........It will take police several months to review the evidence, with any charge likely to be issued on summons.

RoseInOz · Post: # 868971Post **RoseInOz** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 6:46pm

Further update by the club here.
http://www.saints.com.au/season2009/new ... fault.aspx

Mr Magic · Post: # 868972Post **Mr Magic** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 6:49pm

David Grace acted for Montagna in his case.

He also acted for Fremantle in the Sirengate affair.

He's the guy I maintain we should be using for Tribunal Hearings as his record at the Tribunal is second to none.

markp · Post: # 868973Post **markp** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 6:53pm

Several months?

Will he train... play in the meantime?

joffaboy · Post: # 868974Post **joffaboy** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 6:54pm

So Lovett will remain suspended even though there are no charges?

Sounds like the club wants to dump him whatever the outcome.

sainterinsydney · Wed 30 Dec 2009 7:41pm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 782964.htm

Just spotted this article that says Lovett is expected to be charged. Doesn't sound good....

ausfatcat · Post: # 868983Post **ausfatcat** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 7:44pm

sainterinsydney wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 782964.htm

Just spotted this article that says Lovett is expected to be charged. Doesn't sound good....

Depends what the DPP says who wouldn't even have had the interview info yet.

Spinner · Post: # 868986Post **Spinner** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 7:50pm

f***!

plugger66 · Post: # 868991Post **plugger66** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 7:54pm

Nothing really new in all that. He was aways going to be interveiwed and I am still of the opinion the club will decide from what he and the others players have told them and will make a decision from that and not wait for the court case what ever decision they make.

sainterinsydney · Wed 30 Dec 2009 7:55pm

The big concern is the word "months". If this is the case, he is basically written off for 2010 even if they decide to not press charges. It would mean that he wouldn't have a pre-season.

Quixote · Post: # 868993Post **Quixote** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 7:55pm

It seems to me... there is A) no chance Lovett is going to train/play with us whilst he's involved in this process which, as stated, takes months. Otherwise they wouldn't have suspended him in the first place. Leads me to B) It's up to the Club and especially the playing group to decide his future. I've thought from the moment I heard the news that he was GAWN... I think they'll wait for the players to come back on Jan 6th and make an announcement soon after. Remember, the Club has already interviewed (those involved) and no doubt the leadership group too.

Reckon Lovett was gawn two weeks ago. With word of senior players being "furious", I said to my old man at the time - There's no way this bloke is ever going to pull on a St Kilda jumper. Not under Ross Lyon's watch - not under Nick Riewoldt's watch.

Eastern · Post: # 868995Post **Eastern** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 7:56pm

3AW News said that Lovett was interviewed and released "pending a summons application". If this means what I think it means, and the ABC report suggests, then Lovett will be charged on summons as soon as the case is reviewed. The reports also say that this could take months.

Personally (and selfishly from a saints point of view), I would like to see this matter dealt with one way or the other sooner rather than later. I know that we need to consider everyone involved, including the alleged victim but the longer this goes on the more harm it can cause to our brand !!

St Fidelius · Wed 30 Dec 2009 7:59pm

Just my take on this...

If there is no physical evidence and no independent witnesses it will be a hard case to prove...

Very hard to prove otherwise if it becomes one persons evidence against another...

IMO the DPP would be hard pressed to make a case, if it's one persons story against another with no other evidence...

Again, that is if there is no physical evidence and no independent witnesses..

Still, though, one does wonder what the Club would do with Lovett, if there is insufficient evidence, in any case...

Eastern · Post: # 869001Post **Eastern** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 8:00pm

joffaboy wrote:So Lovett will remain suspended even though there are no charges?

Sounds like the club wants to dump him whatever the outcome.

Or, they have a better understanding of what the outcome will/might be than any of us. Either way, it doesn't look good for his immediate future in the game !!

markp · Post: # 869002Post **markp** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 8:02pm

St Fidelius wrote:Just my take on this...

If there is no physical evidence and no independent witnesses it will be a hard case to prove...

Very hard to prove otherwise if it becomes one persons evidence against another...

IMO the DPP would be hard pressed to make a case, if it's one persons story against another with no other evidence...

Again, that is if there is no physical evidence and no independent witnesses..

Still, though, one does wonder what the Club would do with Lovett, if there is insufficient evidence, in any case...

But why would such an apparently simple case take months to investigate and determine whether charges should be laid?

Quixote · Post: # 869003Post **Quixote** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 8:02pm

sainterinsydney wrote:The big concern is the word "months". If this is the case, he is basically written off for 2010 even if they decide to not press charges. It would mean that he wouldn't have a pre-season.

Yep. The only slight, and I stress s l i g h t(1% or less) chance of Andrew continuing at the Saints would be if they basically treated him like an LTI ('cept he's suspended) until the case was done and dusted. If it came off for him (like it did for her

) he could start his 2010 pre-season in August.

Not sure what the legals would be - pay or no pay, rookie etc. He'd have his own little training program but it would not be undertaken at Moorabbin.

GrumpyOne · Post: # 869004Post **GrumpyOne** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 8:04pm

St Fidelius wrote:Just my take on this...

If there is no physical evidence and no independent witnesses it will be a hard case to prove...

Very hard to prove otherwise if it becomes one persons evidence against another...

IMO the DPP would be hard pressed to make a case, if it's one persons story against another with no other evidence...

Again, that is if there is no physical evidence and no independent witnesses..

Still, though, one does wonder what the Club would do with Lovett, if there is insufficient evidence, in any case...

Good summary.

Innocent until proven guilty.

But it does depend on the clauses in his contract.

Suspect he has broken one before this latest incident.

Quixote · Post: # 869006Post **Quixote** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 8:07pm

Eastern wrote:3AW News said that Lovett was interviewed and released "pending a summons application". If this means what I think it means, and the ABC report suggests, then Lovett will be charged on summons as soon as the case is reviewed. The reports also say that this could take months.

If the Police are applying for a summons, it means they think he's got something to answer to. And they'll get it.

Don't think it'll take that long either - collate evidence, give to Court.

From my limited knowledge, about a fortnight.

Stinger should know more, but I think he's off surfing with hot young chicks

plugger66 · Post: # 869007Post **plugger66** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 8:07pm

I dont think the case taking months will have any bearing on the decision. It will be what the players have told the club and if there hint of guilt he will not be back. My guess is the other player in the house knows exactly what happened so it will be mainly in his hands. Dont like his chances though.

markp · Post: # 869009Post **markp** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 8:08pm

Quixote wrote: If it came off for him (like it did for her )

Huh?

St Fidelius · Wed 30 Dec 2009 8:12pm

markp wrote:
St Fidelius wrote:Just my take on this...

If there is no physical evidence and no independent witnesses it will be a hard case to prove...

Very hard to prove otherwise if it becomes one persons evidence against another...

IMO the DPP would be hard pressed to make a case, if it's one persons story against another with no other evidence...

Again, that is if there is no physical evidence and no independent witnesses..

Still, though, one does wonder what the Club would do with Lovett, if there is insufficient evidence, in any case...
But why would such an apparently simple case take months to investigate and determine whether charges should be laid?

I think the "months" would be the worst case scenario

There would still be the need to obtain statements from everyone (even if they didn't see or hear anything) and compile a brief of evidence for submission...

The detectives involved my have up to 15 other briefs to compile in their normal course of duty as well as leave commitments...

Again, nothing is really that simple

ausfatcat · Post: # 869011Post **ausfatcat** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 8:13pm

plugger66 wrote:My guess is the other player in the house knows exactly what happened so it will be mainly in his hands. Dont like his chances though.

Was he watching was he? Otherwise he wouldn't know, unless it didn't happen the player can back up that but he couldn't say if it did happen unless he was watching.

Spinner · Post: # 869014Post **Spinner** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 8:15pm

plugger66 wrote:I dont think the case taking months will have any bearing on the decision. It will be what the players have told the club and if there hint of guilt he will not be back. My guess is the other player in the house knows exactly what happened so it will be mainly in his hands. Dont like his chances though.

I dont agree with this... I doubt the club would make a decision based solely on the judicial abilities of his teammates regarding this incident. If he is sacked, its because of his collective character....rather than being guilty of what he is accused of.

And I doubt the other teammate knows exactly what happened. It would be more likely that the incident happened behind a closed door.

Regardless - I still want to see him play.

GrumpyOne · Post: # 869015Post **GrumpyOne** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 8:15pm

Quixote wrote: Stinger should know more, but I think he's off surfing with hot young chicks

St Fid is a better source..... I know he is.

I wouldn't assume anything from the other.

Spinner · Post: # 869016Post **Spinner** » Wed 30 Dec 2009 8:16pm

ausfatcat wrote:
plugger66 wrote:My guess is the other player in the house knows exactly what happened so it will be mainly in his hands. Dont like his chances though.
Was he watching was he? Otherwise he wouldn't know, unless it didn't happen the player can back up that but he couldn't say if it did happen unless he was watching.

Agreed.