Confessions of a Bulldog: inside football's darkest scandal

[bartman]

From the McEvoy interview http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nsw/content/2006/s1737619.htm

Now, Gary McEvoy, the police officer in charge of the first few days of the investigation, has spoken to Stateline and given his account of the matter. As you will see, the Bulldogs' reputation is not the only casualty from the Coffs Harbour affair.

Interesting...

GARY McEVOY, FORMER DETECTIVE: The young woman described a player coming over to the pool area, looking inside while the rape occurred and he didn't take part in the rape, apparently. He then left the pool area, so, that's where the evidence comes from of a seventh player. It doesn't come from any other witness.

So another Bulldogs player witnessed but didn't take part in the incident, and then gave police evidence about what was happening?

GARY McEVOY, FORMER DETECTIVE: We've got about an hour to account for, from when this act occurred, that we have no doubt did occur, and when staff find the lady crying in the car park area. And, in trying to find out what happened in that hour, we have identified the fact that the victim approached a room where a girlfriend of hers was in and she asked that girlfriend to go back down to the pool area and find her shoes. And it would appear that at the time the victim and the girlfriend were talking, she wasn't upset, she wasn't crying, she wasn't emotional. Now, shortly after, the girlfriend returns from the pool, unable to find the shoes, and finds the victim in a distressed and crying state in the vicinity of the car park and rooms.

So all this focus in the interview about whether there was a second incident in the pool, after the seemingly consensual one that independent witnesses observed, doesn't say anything about whether there was a second incident near the car park and rooms that might have changed the victim's state of mind. Interesting...

SHARON O’NEILL: But at the press conference to announce the case was closed, Chief Inspector Bretton did nothing to clear the Bulldogs' name.

REPORTER: Do you believe something happened in Coffs Harbour in February?

CHIEF INSPECTOR BRETTON: Absolutely.

Can't see anything wrong with that myself... there were no charges, no guilty verdicts, but - even as Timmah admits - "something" clearly happened.

SHARON O’NEILL: Gary McEvoy is now finalising a book about the Coffs Harbour investigation.

Ah, that explains a lot... and I'm supposed to take the word of someone who was doing interviews to try and get a book publishing deal, and who was only in charge for the first few days of the investigation (and presumably not clued into whatever might have happened following that) as gospel? :lol:

The way people had been going on about this Gary McEvoy interview, I thought it would be a lot more conclusive than that.

Sorry guys, I still believe "something happened" in Coffs Harbour, and I stand my suggestion that Magnay and roughly 50% of the general population would still believe the same. Whether it was legal or illegal is now irrelevant - there is not enough evidence to lay charges against players, or against the individual making a complaint. But the something that is universally agreed to have happened - group sex in a public hotel swimming pool by players travelling as part of an official club tour - obviously brought the game into disrepute.

 

[Timmah]

Nice selective quoting, d*ckhead.

 

[bartman]

Nice selective quoting, d*ckhead.

:lol: And that's different to any selective quoting implying that nothing happened in Coffs how, exactly?

Do you have a response to any of the questions these quotes raise, or just spitting the dummy because this holy grail of an interview has massive holes in it?

 

[Timmah]

No, you selectively quoted the interview and have done so either because you were too stupid to read it in it's entirety or you deliberately omitted subsequent passages (most of your quotes appear COMPLETELY out of context).

For that reason I find your idiotic dissection not worthy of a response.

 

[bartman]

:lol: I read the whole thing. It was an interview with a guy that only oversaw the first few days of an interview, and who was doing interviews to try and get a book deal. He makes claims that leave a lot of questions unanswered.

I can't believe that some Dogs fans have held onto this interview so tightly as proof of anything?

I'll say it again - there was not enough evidence to charge Dogs players re Coffs, nor charge the Woman re Coffs. That's all we can know... and Magnay and people in general are perfectly justified in thinking "something" went on in Coffs, not illegal given that no evidence was put before a court, but something which at least brought the game into disrepute.

 

[bartman]

Graeme Hughes said on his show today to expect all of this to be exposed in the coming months in a big way.

Probably just means this ex-copper's finally got his book deal for it all.... ka-ching!

 

[Timmah]

:lol:

A police officer involved in the case has less credibility than the media bullsh*t we were all fed in the interim after it happened?

You're a classic example of the mindless people the media feast on. You probably think Hadley was right in leaking a victim statement too :lol:

 

[bartman]

There won't be much longer for Bulldogs fans to wait before the tainted image can be rightfully said to be in the club's past... Only a couple of these players still left in the joint, and after they leave you can then counter any arguments about unfair Coffs fallout by the fact it will be a whole new team .

Bulldogs 2004 NRL Squad: Where are they now?
Braith Anasta Roosters
Roy Asotasi Rabbitohs
Hazem El Masri (final year?)
Jamie Feeney Storm > Central Coast?
Tony Grimaldi Retired
Ben Harris Cowboys
Corey Hughes Sharks
Glen Hughes Retired
Jamaal Lolesi Huddersfield
Hutch Maiava ...who knows?
Reni Maitua Sharks
Willie Mason Roosters
Brett Oliver ...who knows?
Mark O'Meley Roosters
Luke Patten (final year?)
Adam Perry Junee
Steve Price Warriors
Andrew Ryan (final year?)
Dennis Scott ...who knows?
Brent Sherwin Castleford
Willie Tonga Cowboys
Johnathan Thurston Cowboys
Matt Utai (final year?)
Sonny Bill Williams Had a sook and chased the money

 

[Timmah]

:lol: Do you honestly think any of those players listed were involved?

 

[bartman]

:lol:

A police officer involved in the case has less credibility than the media bullsh*t we were all fed in the interim after it happened?

Um, this police officer is operating in the same world of media bullsh*t as any journalist, simply by giving this interview and plugging his potential book. Wake up and smell the coffee!

In fact, he's less accountable than any journalist, because his next pay doesn't rely on needing to maintain a reputation in terms of what he has said in public.

Do you have a response to any of the questions the quotes McEvoy gave raise, or just spitting the dummy because this holy grail of an interview has massive holes in it?

You're a classic example of the mindless people the media feast on. You probably think Hadley was right in leaking a victim statement too :lol:

You keep telling yourself that ;-). Meanwhile I think you've been asked for a link to verify your version of today's media editorial, that you've proclaimed is some sort of an apology for last week's article...?

 

[bartman]

:lol: Do you honestly think any of those players listed were involved?

You mean the four in bold... probably least likely to have been involved to give an honest opinion.

But this McEvoy interview is hardly the cleansing document some Bulldogs fans want it to be, to be able to hold up the claim that their club is clean and untainted. The only time you'll be able to do that is when you can definitively say that no-one who could have been involved in the 2004 incident is now involved with the club.

 

[Timmah]

Um, this police officer is operating in the same world of media bullsh*t as any journalist, simply by giving this interview and plugging his potential book. Wake up and smell the coffee!

This police officer was part of the investigation of the incident. Regardless of his current status, his statements in these interviews hold far more water than a leaked victim statement to Hadley, agendas from journos like Magnay or the wide public opinion that is so ingrained as a result of the aforementioned leaks and speculation.

In fact, he's less accountable than any journalist, because his next pay doesn't rely on needing to maintain a reputation in terms of what he has said in public.

Bullsh*t! He's an ex-cop! You think any public statement he makes isn't subject to accountability?

Do you have a response to any of the questions the quotes McEvoy gave raise, or just spitting the dummy because this holy grail of an interview has massive holes in it?

Go back and quote them in context and you'll see your quotes raise questions already answered by McEvoy himself.

You keep telling yourself that ;-). Meanwhile I think you've been asked for a link to verify your version of today's media editorial, that you've proclaimed is some sort of an apology for last week's article...?

It's a complete aside and almost totally irrelevant but seeing as you're finding any way to belittle me, click here if you want it.

You mean the four in bold... probably least likely to have been involved to give an honest opinion.

Yes I did mean the four in bold. So really, it's not out of place to say those responsible have more or less already left the club.

But this McEvoy interview is hardly the cleansing document some Bulldogs fans want it to be, to be able to hold up the claim that their club is clean and untainted. The only time you'll be able to do that is when you can definitively say that no-one who could have been involved in the 2004 incident is now involved with the club.

Noone's suggesting the interview clears us or makes us "untainted". What I'm saying is that the interviews with McEvoy make it far clearer than any "not guilty" verdict that nothing illegal occured.

 

[bartman]

This police officer was part of the investigation of the incident. Regardless of his current status, his statements in these interviews hold far more water than a leaked victim statement to Hadley, agendas from journos like Magnay or the wide public opinion that is so ingrained as a result of the aforementioned leaks and speculation.

In your opinion... are you saying that Magnay's lead story of last week is somehow not reliable or believable?

Bullsh*t! He's an ex-cop! You think any public statement he makes isn't subject to accountability?

I think the "ex" bit is your hint there... and in the Stateline interview he hasn't even said anything that clears up any of the murky unanswered questions.

Go back and quote them in context and you'll see your quotes raise questions already answered by McEvoy himself.

I can go back and quote the whole thing, and highlight the bits I've already quoted, and I'll still be searching for this "context" you say supposedly makes everything so crystal clear... It's just not there Timmah, he was involved for the first three days - anything he says about events beyond that is simply conjecture.

It's a complete aside and almost totally irrelevant but seeing as you're finding any way to belittle me, click here if you want it.

Um, but that's about Pauline...? Did you mean the editorial was an apology about Pauline, and not the Magnay story? I don't think I'd be the first in this thread to misunderstand what you were referring to given the timing and order of your post referring to the editorial.

Yes I did mean the four in bold. So really, it's not out of place to say those responsible have more or less already left the club.

More or less, but it reamins that the McEvoy interview actually adds nothing to any case about Coffs never having happened, or the Bulldogs being unfairly treated for bringing the game into disrepute over those events.

Noone's suggesting the interview clears us or makes us "untainted". What I'm saying is that the interviews with McEvoy make it far clearer than any "not guilty" verdict that nothing illegal occured.

Which is totally irrelevant to what has been discussed in this thread.

Someone questioned Magnay's article, asking whether she thinks Bulldogs players were not charged due to lack of evidence at Coffs. That is exactly what happened. *And that's why I think 50% of people still think that the Bulldogs engaged in untoward (if not proven illegal) conduct, which has brought the game into disrepute.* But to say that means "nothing illegal occurred" is a complete stretch... just as saying that something illegal occurred would be a stretch, without evidence either way.

If the woman had been charged with and found guilty of public mischief, you'd be able to claim that. But as I've said, this will remain in that murky area between "nothing happened" and "not guilty" or "not enough evidence to charge" forever. Just because this McEvoy guy says that police were thinking about public mischief on day 3 or whatever doesn't prove anything at all about Coffs - except add to the publicity for this merkin's upcoming book!

 

[Timmah]

And so you think it's your right to assume guilt because it's all inconclusive according to you?

If that's not what you mean, you might want to consider changing your tact, because it's how you're coming across.

 

[ibeme]

From the McEvoy interview http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nsw/content/2006/s1737619.htm


Interesting...


So another Bulldogs player witnessed but didn't take part in the incident, and then gave police evidence about what was happening?

Honestly, you need to read the interview again. Properly.

 

[bartman]

And so you think it's your right to assume guilt because it's all inconclusive according to you?

If that's not what you mean, you might want to consider changing your tact, because it's how you're coming across.

Or you might want to read through all the posts again, to get it a bit clearer? I'll try again anyhow...

It remains undisputed that group sex in a public place occurred whilst the Bulldogs were representing league on an away game tour, and that this brought the game into disrepute.

What I'm saying - about Magnay and roughly 50% of the general population - is not that they are assuming guilt. They are your words, and this has nothing to do with a court case or laying of charges.

I'm saying that people can believe - if they see fit, based on the sum total of "evidence" (loose definition, includes media reports and speculation) - that something untoward may have happened, even if no charges were laid, or (if for some reason) someone is found not guilty of a charge that was laid.

People's opinions and beliefs are not a court of law, and are not bound by the same levels of proof as a court of law requires to decide charges. When Magnay's motives were questioned by a poster in this thread, about whether she believes there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone over Coffs, I replied that this is obviously the case (re Magnay's views, as expressed in her article), and also probably the belief of around 50% of people in the general (non-league) population, that "something happened" in Coffs.

Again, this has nothing to do with guilt, innocence, or charges. But I will say that Magnay and 50% of the population (including myself) have every right to form their own beliefs and opinion about the events that transpired, because there is no conclusive proof from either side. McEvoy's quotes are proof of anything I'm afraid, you needed an actual verdict on a public mischief charge to attempt to take away people's right to believe whatever they want to believe about Coffs, in the way that you - and Malcolm Noad at the time - seem to be seeking to.

It will remain murky forever, because of the inconclusiveness of the investiagtions - in either direction. Bulldogs fans sadly have to live with that due to the actions of their players at the time, until such time as none of the above players are associated with the Bulldogs anymore.

 

[bartman]

Honestly, you need to read the interview again. Properly.

I have. Or you could give an alternative view of what mcEvoy's ambiguous statement means to you.

Either way it is the statement of a man who was involved for the first three days, and appears to be touting for a book contract at the time of this interview, which takes place in the realm of the very media machinations which people are quick to criticise in relation to others. I'm not sure how any of McEvoys quotes can be taken to prove anything as to what did or didn't happen?

 

[Timmah]

SO you apply scrutiny to people who actually were involved but don't question the media's role in it all? :lol: You need your head read buddy.

 

[ibeme]

I have. Or you could give an alternative view of what mcEvoy's ambiguous statement means to you.

Either way it is the statement of a man who was involved for the first three days, and appears to be touting for a book contract at the time of this interview, which takes place in the realm of the very media machinations which people are quick to criticise in relation to others. I'm not sure how any of McEvoys quotes can be taken to prove anything as to what did or didn't happen?

Here's a bit more context. Bretton claimed there was a seventh player. McEvoy states that there was no evidence to support this.

Now, based on pure logic, if you were to claim for certain that a seventh player was present, then you must also know who that seventh player was. Otherwise, how do you know it was a player? That's where the claim of a seventh player was flawed.

CHIEF INSPECTOR BRETTON: There is a seventh player involved. It's quite easy to exculpate yourself from the inquiry, if you want to put your hand up and say you’re that seventh person.

REPORTER: ...is that the victim's version.

CHIEF INSPECTOR BRETTON: No, we know the seventh person.

REPORTER: How do you know that?

CHIEF INSPECTOR BRETTON: Somebody told us.

GARY McEVOY, FORMER DETECTIVE: The young woman described a player coming over to the pool area, looking inside while the rape occurred and he didn't take part in the rape, apparently. He then left the pool area, so, that's where the evidence comes from of a seventh player. It doesn't come from any other witness.

SHARON O’NEILL: Did the investigation ever rule out the notion of a seventh player, that had been a seventh player?

GARY McEVOY, FORMER DETECTIVE: We never found evidence of six players being there, let alone seven players.

SHARON O’NEILL: By the end of the investigation, Gary McEvoy was convinced his doubts in the early stages of the police inquiry were right - no rape had occurred.

Here's another link from the ABC that I posted a few years ago, based on reports from the DPP's office:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1100045.htm

But it was decided that, based on the available evidence, it wouldn't have been possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a sexual assault took place. According to the documents, even the opportunity for gang rape to have occurred that morning, didn't exist.

There are plenty more reports posted on this website, that you have obviously not read that brings more clarity to the night in question. Until you're prepared to read all of these reports in their entirety, you're far from qualified to state that 'something did happen'.

Let's not forget that the player's version of events were locked in only a few hours after the compaint was made. That version of events never changed, and remained consistent with witness accounts. It was the accusers version that changed, and was incosistent.

 

[ibeme]

So you believe the girl's testimony and injuries to her privates were all fabricated? and all the Hotel patrons who heard screaming for help was fabricated?

The reported injuries were fabricated. Bretton himself stated that in a press conference.

What screams? In fact, that was one of the things that backed up the players claims. Nobody at the resort heard any screams. You need to read the reports before you comment.