NRL Players and family members in hot water

[Socnorb]

Were they leaked or read out in court though? Most courtrooms are public places.

/published =Sucks being famous

 

[broncos4life]

/published =Sucks being famous

huh?

 

[Nashy]

It's going to get very angry in here if you guys who are so convinced of the outcome don't calm down. You don't know, so starting to get angry at people who are arguing the opposite side is dumb, everyone knows the exact same amount of information.

 

[Morkel]

I wish there was some way to determine with a high degree of certainty if a person is lying, especially in cases such as this, where there may only be the words of one side against those of the other, because if they claim the rough sex was consensual, I am not sure how much forensic science has advanced to be able to distinguish the difference.

This. It would be wonderful if there was a definitive way of finding out if people are lying. One problem is the "truth" is always very subjective. The same event witnessed by two people can be perceived very differently. Let's look theoretically at this situation - say the offender(s) are used to women being regularly attracted to them, willing to sleep with them, and going back to a private place almost always leads to sex. Now say that the offender quite regularly plays it a bit rough, and many women either enjoy it or don't speak up, that behavior can become normalised for the offender. On the other side though, the victim genuinely did not believe that going to a private place meant sex, especially as a different excuse was made to go there. They do not expect and do not consent to have sex, but effectively shut down in the process due to fear / survival instincts. They do what their instincts tell them to do to survive, and escape the situation without making their fear known. In this case, both version of events are 100% valid, despite being completely at odds.

As for straight up lies though, obviously results of lie detectors are not admissible in court. I used to think that if they were, like, 90% accurate, surely that's far more accurate than "he said, she said, who has the best lawyer". But then I remember that lie detector tests can be easily tricked, so that 90% accuracy would go way down if lawyers and coaching got involved.

Then of course you have the fabled drug-induced "truth serums" which may or may not exist. They probably do, however I'm sure there would be massive roadblocks on how ethical they would be to use etc.

Then you go tin foil hat (at least I do). Are there 99% reliable ways of finding out the truth, but they're not publicly disclosed because those in power, not just politicians, but industry leaders, rely on bullshit to keep themselves in power?

 

[Browny]

Wow Huge, victim blaming much.

Just guessing here but I would assume her injuries/bruising which generallyshows after a few days would corroborate her story.

 

[Sproj]

Wow Huge, victim blaming much.

Just guessing here but I would assume her injuries/bruising which generallyshows after a few days would corroborate her story.

Is he victim blaming? I don't agree with a lot, perhaps most, of what Huge says and if he is victim shaming, I certainly DON'T agree here. BUT, I think it is understandable from the report that the going for drinks thing is strange.

I can certainly see that it could have been a survival / coping mechanism but I can also see that it does look strange on the surface without any further details on that point given, which I think is the point Huge is making.

He doesn't seem to be implying that it is her fault at all, simply that this point needs further clarification, this I agree with.

 

[Socnorb]

huh?

just making the point that if he wasn't famous none of this would be published.

 

[Huge]

WTF? Way to miss the point. I'm not blaming the victim, but I am also not about to judge and condemn without being absolutely sure of their guilt, something you seem to be prone to...


Guilt, shame and regret are highly powerful motivators. There are plenty of examples of this. Seems like you've already made up your mind based on one article though. What the **** ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

So on the money! What is it with people on here? Zero to 100. If you try to see things with balance then you are a misogynistic rapist supporting freak. Usually it's because people are not yet capable of a disinterested view.

 

[Huge]

Wow Huge, victim blaming much.

Just guessing here but I would assume her injuries/bruising which generallyshows after a few days would corroborate her story.

Wtf? Victim blaming, **** off. The story as reported raises doubts and any defence would rightly point to that. Injuries and bruising can tell a story but can be obtained in a number of ways and for a variety of reasons. On the scant evidence so far to me it seems slightly more likely her story is true.

 

[Huge]

Is he victim blaming? I don't agree with a lot, perhaps most, of what Huge says and if he is victim shaming, I certainly DON'T agree here. BUT, I think it is understandable from the report that the going for drinks thing is strange.

I can certainly see that it could have been a survival / coping mechanism but I can also see that it does look strange on the surface without any further details on that point given, which I think is the point Huge is making.

He doesn't seem to be implying that it is her fault at all, simply that this point needs further clarification, this I agree with.

Thankyou. Totally correct. I don't agree with a lot of what Huge says either.

 

[Browny]

Okay, I’ll have to re-read it but that’s how I took it.

 

[tommy]

Another part of her story the defence will concentrate on is the bit where she says she was using the bathroom and he came in naked and had a shower after she left the room. Kinda odd she didn't get the hell outta there then while he was in the shower.

 

[broncos4life]

Another part of her story the defence will concentrate on is the bit where she says she was using the bathroom and he came in naked and had a shower after she left the room. Kinda odd she didn't get the hell outta there then while he was in the shower.

Is it though? in hindsight after an 'alleged' rape has happened, yeah should have gotten out of there.

However at the time this had happened that were having a good night together, most likely drunk as **** so without knowing his intention was to rape she probably thought it was funny. In a normal circumstances he comes back out with his clothes on, they laugh about him being a dirty prick and they go back out on the town.

 

[Unbreakable]

Another part of her story the defence will concentrate on is the bit where she says she was using the bathroom and he came in naked and had a shower after she left the room. Kinda odd she didn't get the hell outta there then while he was in the shower.

It's really, really hard to try and put yourself in her shoes and get an accurate read on what might've been going through her head at the time, let's remember that up until that point she had no inclination that he was going to do anything untoward with her.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say she had the intention of sleeping with him that night, why else realistically would she be tagging along with him on a club crawl. Him walking in naked might've been weird, but it probably didn't immediately raise alarm bells like "Oh my god, he's naked, I'm going to be raped, I've gotta get outta here", it was probably more along the lines of "Oh, he's naked, I guess he's DTF a bit later once we're finished at the clubs and his friend goes home."

At least that's my read on it, could be way off.

 

[Porthoz]

No I haven't made up my mind and I haven't said he is guilty, for all I know based on the evidence we have been provided with is guilty of being a scumbag, possibly much more but possibly not.

What I am disputing is this insinuation that is being made that "oh she had a shower and didn't immediately run from the hotel screaming so she is making it up". As I have said there have been plenty of previous cases with similar actions after the fact (shower, acting like everything is ok until in a safe place) where the person has been raped, so I am arguing back against what some are suggesting.

Guilt, shame and regret are powerful motivators, absolutely, and that could be what is happening here. It has to be said though that this is a very traumatic experience to put yourself through with virtually no payoff if this is simply a way to deal with your regret. Going to the tabloids or privately approaching De Belin and/or the club for a payment would make a lot more sense to deal with shame and guilt then putting yourself through a rape kit, endless scrutiny, prolonged trauma and what will almost undoubtedly be a character assassination by the defense against her on the stand.

All good points, except the insinuation. You know me better than that.
It's one thing to want absolute proof before convicting someone of such a crime, and another entirely to blame the victim.

 

[Nashy]

Is it though? in hindsight after an 'alleged' rape has happened, yeah should have gotten out of there.

However at the time this had happened that were having a good night together, most likely drunk as **** so without knowing his intention was to rape she probably thought it was funny. In a normal circumstances he comes back out with his clothes on, they laugh about him being a dirty prick and they go back out on the town.

No one is victim blaming. It's not just a buzzword, it actually means something. They are not saying she put herself into this situation, they're not saying she could have done something different to avoid being raped.

They're discussing possible scenarios of things that may, or may not play a part in evidence. No different to what you are doing, but on the opposite side of the court room.

 

[Sirlee oldman]

All good points, except the insinuation. You know me better than that.
It's one thing to want absolute proof before convicting someone of such a crime, and another entirely to blame the victim.

Look I am sorry if I come across as aggressive on this issue but I have sat in the courtroom while 2 people I love have been torn apart by these arguments.
I agree with the principle of innocent until proven guilty but I get very frustrated when that extends to actively questioning whether the victim is telling the truth. Where is her right to be believed until she’s proven to be a liar? He has good legal counsel so at this point all we can say about his side of the story is that he is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
From her point of view she must prove his guilt and any thing she says is dissected for believability according to how you guys think you would react in her situation.
I don’t think that’s fair. If he did what she says then she is traumatised and on the losing side of the argument before it really begins. How does she prove this unequivocally?
I honestly don’t know. I hope that the physical evidence is there and the jury somehow can magically arrive at the right decision. The worst outcome we can have is that men realise that under our current justice system you can do whatever you want if there’s no video evidence and you have a completely ruthless piece of shit lawyer.

 

[Porthoz]

Look I am sorry if I come across as aggressive on this issue but I have sat in the courtroom while 2 people I love have been torn apart by these arguments.
I agree with the principle of innocent until proven guilty but I get very frustrated when that extends to actively questioning whether the victim is telling the truth. Where is her right to be believed until she’s proven to be a liar? He has good legal counsel so at this point all we can say about his side of the story is that he is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
From her point of view she must prove his guilt and any thing she says is dissected for believability according to how you guys think you would react in her situation.
I don’t think that’s fair. If he did what she says then she is traumatised and on the losing side of the argument before it really begins. How does she prove this unequivocally?
I honestly don’t know. I hope that the physical evidence is there and the jury somehow can magically arrive at the right decision. The worst outcome we can have is that men realise that under our current justice system you can do whatever you want if there’s no video evidence and you have a completely ruthless piece of shit lawyer.

Mate, you don't have to apologise. Everyone's opinion is coloured by their life experiences, as we've recently seen in the Controversial thread.
I know someone who almost certainly committed a brutal murder against a close relative. Police are convinced of it too, and the circumstantial evidence is strong. Unfortunately, there isn't enough tangible evidence to convict him, even after an inquest, so he has walked free for over 20 years.

I mostly agree with your point here. Assuming her side is the truth, she's in a lose/lose position, where after being raped, she will possibly be torn apart in court and as B4L mentioned, see her character assassinated on top of everything. Hopefully there will be some reparation in long jail terms for her assaulters, but the mental scars will never go away.

However, her right to be believed, ends when it infringes on the right to freedom from someone she accuses of a very serious crime. People lie for all kinds of reasons, they just do, and it would be a slippery slope where not justice, but the best liars would be rewarded.

The FBI puts the amount of proven false accusations of rape at 8% 20 years ago, well before the [HASHTAG]#metoo[/HASHTAG] movement. This is not taking into account cases which were not prosecuted for lack of evidence!
The main reason for the accusations? "Emotional gain" of experimenting young women who feel regret and shame, especially when multiple partners were involved, and use those accusations as a mechanism to both feel better about themselves and avoid judgement of others.

Only recently, 2 men accused of gang raping a woman, were released and their sentence vacated in New York, because despite the lack of conclusive evidence, they believed her. 26 years later, DNA evidence and the woman's own admission that she lied, finally brought justice to them.

I realise that my stance will result in criminals going free, but I can live with that if it means no innocents are punished, even if the ratio was 1000 to 1.