Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Why do you grace us with your absolute tripe you pretentious flog?To the top wrote:And then you read what is written on sites such as this - the uneducated telling their fellow uneducated what they do not know.
He has upset a woman greatly. He pissed off his teammates to the point of being kicked out of the club. He denies fault for any of it. and pulled the race card in court to attempt to get off.To the top wrote:The prosecution case was that Lovett had raped the woman complainant.
This is what the jury had to deliver a verdict on.
No other matter is relevant.
If he expressed remorse that such an allegation had been made against him then that is his claim.
Where is the link between remorse and living your life like an abstaining hermit?
In regards the allegation that Lovett had raped the woman complainant, the jury has found him not guilty on all counts.
Lovett pleaded not guilty.
He had the right of the presumption of innocence - and this presumption and the jury decision has been compromised by the Murdoch media, typically looking for a headline to sell its disgraced garbage.
And then you read what is written on sites such as this - the uneducated telling their fellow uneducated what they do not know.
I would like to see Newscorp charged with attempting to bring the legal system into dis-repute by inflaming public opinion contrary to the decision of the Court - and for Lovett to take action against them for libel.
All Newscorp does is feed the uneducated, not worrying about the individuals concerned and as we see with their illegal activities in the UK - and, no doubt, elsewhere.
I did put that St Kilda were on dangerous ground in terminating Lovett's contract and should have supported him until the (arguementally principal to his dismissal from St Kilda) charges had been tested in a Court of Law.
I still think that St Kilda are on dangerous ground.
I'm afraid I'd have to agree with Defence Counsel on that.Richter wrote:Not sure GO, but it's this article that I think the poster is referring to....
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-n ... 6101400291
So, the answer to your question of "how long should he remain celibate for" is something along the lines of "at least as long as it might take to pull up his flies".During the trial, Mr Tovey had taken exception to evidence about Lovett's apparent "degree of hurt'' after the model accused him of rape.
Mr Tovey said Lovett rang a second woman after he was hounded by St Kilda players at Gram's Port Melbourne apartment in the wake of the sex allegations.
"The reality of the situation is that on arriving home that night Mr Lovett rang (the other woman), she came around, spent the night with him,'' Mr Tovey told Judge Meryl Sexton.
"Had sex with him, and was seen in the lift by (St Kilda football manager) Greg Hutchison around 5am when Andrew Lovett had asked for extra time before Greg Hutchison came up to see him.''
Mr Tovey said that set of circumstances was "wholly inconsistent'' with evidence suggesting Lovett was hurt and pained over the rape allegations.
Defence counsel David Grace, QC, argued the evidence should not be put before the jury because it would amount to a miscarriage of justice.
"It introduces an entirely prejudicial, or potentially prejudicial episode, where the explanation might simply be that he needed comfort,'' Mr Grace told the judge.
The jury was never told about Lovett's sexual liaison with the second woman because Mr Tovey withdrew his application to have the evidence heard.
Judge Sexton indicated she would have been unlikely to have allowed the evidence in.
Now, each to their own, but having sex with another person within a few hours at most after having sex with and having been accused of rape by someone else in front of your workmates.... hmmm... makes you wonder what sort of a person does that..... one who views women as objects for his own gratification and not a lot else?....
Did Stinger make a mistake on a point of law?saints66 wrote:The prosecution has no right of appeal against a not guilty verdict, in Victoria. They only have the right to appeal against the sentence in a guilty result. It is called the principle of double jeopardy.stinger wrote:don't bring race into it lowlife ....f****** a drunk girl is a low act...whether you are black white or poka- dotted, clown....you have been defending this creep right from the start ..but we know your history don't we...GrumpyOne wrote:If there is any problems with the Australian Justice System, it is because creeps like you inhabit it.stinger wrote:and you know where you can go creep.....not guilty has never meant innocent ....and i will never regard f****** a drunk girl as okay....the guys an animal....GrumpyOne wrote:Awww Stinger, that's low even for you.stinger wrote:P
FOOTBALLER Andrew Lovett's ex-girlfriend claims she feared she would die as he held her hostage and bashed her.
Ms Watson told the Herald Sun Lovett bombarded her with 180 text messages for two months after their tumultuous breakup on February 4 last year.
In one, he allegedly said he was a "special person" who "could probably get away with murder".
pretty true...what he said....
You are reporting hearsay on what he allegedly said and implying that he did in fact "get away with murder" in regard to this case.
The verdict was "Not Guilty"; accept it and move on, and don't muddy the waters with your churlish bias.
Accept the verdict. We have got past vigilante's stringing up the nearest black man in this country.
Well, some of us have.....
accept the verdict.????..not on your nellie...and i hope the dpp don't either....that's what appeal courts are for...or are you going to insult them and call them racist also...moron....
Sorry Richter for the law/history lesson but, Australia does have a Constitution. It was approved in referendums held over 1898–1900 by the people of the Australian colonies, and the approved draft was enacted as a section of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Royal Assent was given by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900, upon which date the Constitution became law. It came into force on 1 January 1901. As a side note, Parliament is not the only law making body in Australia. Courts also make law in Australia via the system of precedent that it is required to follow.Richter wrote:Yes, we do have to use the law of the land - which by the way is NOT set in stone. Australia does not have a constitution (which you well know!), and there is one particular way in which laws can and are changed - without resorting to lynching, totalitarian rule, or other such actions. They are called acts of parliament.joffaboy wrote:I understand this, but the facts are, unless you want us to throw out our system of justice and just lynch accused rapists, we have to use the system of law in our land.Richter wrote: It is a fact that the majority of rapists are NOT brought to justice. That has been well established. Why are they not? IMO there is clearly a systemac bias against women who are sexually assaulted. By taking that viewpoint it is only logical to say that the systemic bias must be made up of individual incorrect verdicts.
And regardless of majority cases, this is an individual case, where all the evidence presented to the court was tested and found wanting.
Lovett has alway had the presumption of innocence and has now had that confirmed by a court of law.
I am sure the sisters fell gratified by your support, however, and even if i support that view, Lovett is entitled, under our laws, to his day in court, to have a presumption of innocence, and to have a jury of peers arrive at a verdict after hearing all the presented evidence.Richter wrote:I'm sorry that by saying that I am not going along with the prevailing political patriarchy. You can call that ignorant if you like, but I prefer to think of it as an avowedly feminist critique of the status quo which holds some merit.
you and the sisters can have an opinion, but unless you want to overthrow the government, change the presumption of innocence, and make up admissable evidence - just like the Guildford 4 or Birm 6, I think we all should live under the Australian system of law, not some sort of totalitarian star chamber or lynch mob mentality.
I accept that what I am saying is at odds with the current system. I'd like to see the current system changed. There is nowhere near enough political pressure applied to making this happen.
This country has come a long way in terms of race relations and gender equality. IMO it has some way to go. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a member of any political pressure group - perhaps I ought to be. I am aware both through personal and professional means of many victims of sexually based crimes and in the vast majority of cases there has been no prosecution of the perpetrators. I have no specific solution to apply, but I know a social problem when I see one. And in this case I know an injustice when I see one.
This case has both race and gender issues, but IMO the race issue is not as relevant. Fully understand that others may not view it the same way.
And who precisely is the victim? Are you talking about Andrew Lovett?Cairnsman wrote:I agree Doc but as you well know some football followers need reminding that in some circumstances there is more to consider than just football. It just helps to keep threads like this balanced and considerate of the people involved.Dr Spaceman wrote:Maybe I've got more faith in the compassion of my fellow man, but I think that's a given Cairnsman.Cairnsman wrote:Let's hope it doesn't effect the victim too I think you forgot to say.mr six o'clock wrote:Thanks !Saint Bev wrote:I've heard it starts Monday. 5 players, Gram, Fisher, Blake, Schnider & McQualter + a Saints official, I think.
I just hope it won't effect them too much on game day seeing they may miss training !
However this is a Saints footy forum and I don't think people are being disrespectful of the victim by simply commenting on the possible effects of the case on our players and our club.
Oh and the Herald Sun is the absolute bastion of credible reporting. For a start the right wing neandrethals at News Ltd should learn what irrelevant and inadmissable evidence is. Whatever Ms Watson says whether true or not is irrelevant and inadmissable for good reason.stinger wrote:P
FOOTBALLER Andrew Lovett's ex-girlfriend claims she feared she would die as he held her hostage and bashed her.
Ms Watson told the Herald Sun Lovett bombarded her with 180 text messages for two months after their tumultuous breakup on February 4 last year.
In one, he allegedly said he was a "special person" who "could probably get away with murder".
pretty true...what he said....
That's what I thought...saints66 wrote:The prosecution has no right of appeal against a not guilty verdict, in Victoria. They only have the right to appeal against the sentence in a guilty result. It is called the principle of double jeopardy.stinger wrote:accept the verdict.????..not on your nellie...and i hope the dpp don't either....that's what appeal courts are for...or are you going to insult them and call them racist also...moron....
People have sex in times of great stress and grief too... and I think it was probably as irrelevant as it was open to be misinterpreted.Richter wrote:Now, each to their own, but having sex with another person within a few hours at most after having sex with and having been accused of rape by someone else in front of your workmates.... hmmm... makes you wonder what sort of a person does that..... one who views women as objects for his own gratification and not a lot else?....
And some people are conniving, cold-hearted, self-important selfish pigs but that doesn't make them rapists.markp wrote:People have sex in times of great stress and grief too... and I think it was probably as irrelevant as it was open to be misinterpreted.Richter wrote:Now, each to their own, but having sex with another person within a few hours at most after having sex with and having been accused of rape by someone else in front of your workmates.... hmmm... makes you wonder what sort of a person does that..... one who views women as objects for his own gratification and not a lot else?....
we expect a jury to deliberate a difficult case like this one, but they aren't able to appropriate reasonable weight as to interpret the accused's state of mind afterwards by the actions that he undertook?markp wrote:People have sex in times of great stress and grief too... and I think it was probably as irrelevant as it was open to be misinterpreted.Richter wrote:Now, each to their own, but having sex with another person within a few hours at most after having sex with and having been accused of rape by someone else in front of your workmates.... hmmm... makes you wonder what sort of a person does that..... one who views women as objects for his own gratification and not a lot else?....
don't want me to respond to you??then stfu creep....everything i did was correct...that c*** threatened my family...edited the posts i sent to him, then slunk off into the night like the piece of trash he was...and you are not much better...a wanna be cross dressing internet warrier...ffs...get a life...or a proper job...book keeper. pfftttjoffaboy wrote:
Please dont respnd to me again, I dont want to converse with lying cowards.
your the f****** liar....The OtherThommo wrote:
Perhaps, should the girl in the Lovett case have sufficient means, she might seek redress through a civil action. 'On the balance of probablilities', rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt', and more victim friendly evidence admissibility criteria might offer some justice.
I also believe the inquisatorial justice system practiced in many places (e.g. France), rather than the adversarial system of most Anglo based countries, might well offer a better route to justice in cases such as the one under discussion. Inquisatorial systems have their critics, but they do seem to be more designed to get to the truth.
lol - they weren't edited. You have been found out and everyone on here knows that all your aggressiveness is nothing more than pathetic bluster.stinger wrote:don't want me to respond to you??then stfu creep....everything i did was correct...that c*** threatened my family...edited the posts i sent to him, then slunk off into the night like the piece of trash he was...and you are not much better...a wanna be cross dressing internet warrier...ffs...get a life...or a proper job...book keeper. pfftttjoffaboy wrote:
Please dont respnd to me again, I dont want to converse with lying cowards.
i was once in court when a jury acquitted a guy...only to see him arrested on the court steps for a similar offence .....think they are probably still feeling guilty.....Richter wrote:we expect a jury to deliberate a difficult case like this one, but they aren't able to appropriate reasonable weight as to interpret the accused's state of mind afterwards by the actions that he undertook?markp wrote:People have sex in times of great stress and grief too... and I think it was probably as irrelevant as it was open to be misinterpreted.Richter wrote:Now, each to their own, but having sex with another person within a few hours at most after having sex with and having been accused of rape by someone else in front of your workmates.... hmmm... makes you wonder what sort of a person does that..... one who views women as objects for his own gratification and not a lot else?....
Neither did the jury hear about his priors.
They didn't even get to hear him be questioned, put through the wringer, unlike his victim , who got to relive her trauma in the witness box for zero tangible result.
Yeah, terrific system of justice this one. It's based on the British system.... as mentioned, there are other ways.... This system fails victims of sexual assaults. Another victim is tainted today.... and twelve jurists have to look themselves in the mirror tonight. I wonder how many distrust their decision now they can read ALL the facts....
Pray tell what are the other ways? The only other system of trial in the world is the Inquisitorial System widely used in Continental Europe. We use a Common Law system because we were colonised by the British. Maybe if the French had beaten the British to get here we would have the French Inquisitorial System. But that system also has great difficulty in coping with the difficult area of sexual assault. It happens in private in Europe just as much as in Australia so it is difficult to show lack of consent!Richter wrote:we expect a jury to deliberate a difficult case like this one, but they aren't able to appropriate reasonable weight as to interpret the accused's state of mind afterwards by the actions that he undertook?markp wrote:People have sex in times of great stress and grief too... and I think it was probably as irrelevant as it was open to be misinterpreted.Richter wrote:Now, each to their own, but having sex with another person within a few hours at most after having sex with and having been accused of rape by someone else in front of your workmates.... hmmm... makes you wonder what sort of a person does that..... one who views women as objects for his own gratification and not a lot else?....
Neither did the jury hear about his priors.
They didn't even get to hear him be questioned, put through the wringer, unlike his victim , who got to relive her trauma in the witness box for zero tangible result.
Yeah, terrific system of justice this one. It's based on the British system.... as mentioned, there are other ways.... This system fails victims of sexual assaults. Another victim is tainted today.... and twelve jurists have to look themselves in the mirror tonight. I wonder how many distrust their decision now they can read ALL the facts....
Good point Stinger about that third option as used in Scotland. We are moving in that direction in Australia. The Baillieu Government did campaign on abolishing the double jeopardy rule so there may be some move to allow 'not proven' verdicts.stinger wrote:pity that a jury in this country has only two options ...in scotland there is a third......"not proven".....doesn't mean that a person is innocent....just that the prosecution didn't prove the offense beyound all reasonable doubt....would have been appropriate in this instance...hope the girl sues the prick for damages.....more likely to get a decision in her favour in a civil case.....i always said that there was a chance lovett would get off.....
...bet the coppers, the girl, her boyfriend and the prosecution team disagree with the verdict.....
( God help me)