Confessions of a Bulldog: inside football's darkest scandal

[bartman]

Thanks for going to the trouble Ibeme.

I still have problems though... in the wider context you've given, Bretton's word (who was involved in the investigation for longer than McEvoy?) is being countered by McEvoy's word to the reporter? I have no reason to believ McEvoy over Bretton, seeing as Bretton is still involved in the force and McEvoy is flogging a book.

Re the DPP quote, I'm agreeing that "it is not possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt" that a sexual assualt took place. I don't think anyone is disputing that, seeing as there were no charges laid. What I do dispute is that that fact automatically means that (as Malcolm Noad claimed) "nothing happened in Coffs".

However, if the documents imply the opportunity for gang rape to have occured that morning didn't exist, why then was the woman not charged with public mischief? What does the report or McEvoy have to say about that? Does the absence of charge and the presumption of innocence not also apply to the woman as well as the players, given the available evidence was not enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that nothing happened?

All I'm saying is that in any given situation a not guilty verdict, or no charges, does not automatically also mean that nothing happened. To claim otherwise is fraught with problems, and based on a logic that can be equally applied in reverse to claim with equal validity something did happen. That's as good as we're ever going to get with Coffs, like it or lump it.

I've suggested in (answer to a question) that Magnay clearly is of the latter opinion, as would be roughly 50% of the general public. From your link:

The documents suggest that while they didn't break the law, the Bulldogs acted beyond the pale, having taken advantage of a disturbed and immature young woman.

That's pretty much the crux of it to me - the "somthing" untoward that I've said has happened. The whole emphasis of guilty v innocent etc was mistakenly brought into the thread by Timmah, and he was also picked up on that by other posters earlier on.

 

[bartman]

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.

Huh? People that were involved are part of the media - if you're talking about McEvoy going on the talk circuit two years later with a book to talk about in the last paragraph of the interview.

I see people blindly accepting McEvoy's quotes long after the even, without scrutinising the media's role in relation to why (and how) he suddenly comes before us with his knowledge.

Which part of the media do you not think I'm scrutinising Timmah, in terms of the relevance of the media to any of the points I've made? Or are you just having a general rant because I won't admit that something untoward that brought the game into disrepute simply didn't happen...

 

[ibeme]

Thanks for going to the trouble Ibeme.

I still have problems though... in the wider context you've given, Bretton's word (who was involved in the investigation for longer than McEvoy?) is being countered by McEvoy's word to the reporter? I have no reason to believ McEvoy over Bretton, seeing as Bretton is still involved in the force and McEvoy is flogging a book.

Think logically. Why was Breton pleading for the seventh player to come forward? If they knew who it was, they would have dragged him in for questioning. If they didn't know who it was, then they also can't know that it was a player. At the most, it could have only been a seventh person. You can't know that it was a player without knowing which player. To claim otherwise defies logic. The way I see it, this could only have been an attempt at drawing a mystery seventh player forward that existed purely based on the accusers claims.

Re the DPP quote, I'm agreeing that "it is not possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt" that a sexual assualt took place. I don't think anyone is disputing that, seeing as there were no charges laid. What I do dispute is that that fact automatically means that (as Malcolm Noad claimed) "nothing happened in Coffs".

I think that was a poor choice of words on Noad's part. Of course something happened. Sex happened. It happened in a resort pool. I'd call that lewd behaviour. Sinister behavour? Comes down to opinion really.

However, if the documents imply the opportunity for gang rape to have occured that morning didn't exist, why then was the woman not charged with public mischief? What does the report or McEvoy have to say about that? Does the absence of charge and the presumption of innocence not also apply to the woman as well as the players, given the available evidence was not enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that nothing happened?

According to the anonymous player in this interview, it was because they were told that she would have to basically admit it to be found guilty. That was not going to happen. In another interview (which I can't find), I'm quite certain that McEvoy states that they considered laying such charges very early on in the investigation. Then Breton took over.

All I'm saying is that in any given situation a not guilty verdict, or no charges, does not automatically also mean that nothing happened. To claim otherwise is fraught with problems, and based on a logic that can be equally applied in reverse to claim with equal validity something did happen. That's as good as we're ever going to get with Coffs, like it or lump it.

No. We know that sex took place in a morally questionable location. That's not 'nothing'. It's questionable behaviour, morally deprived behaviour even depending on your point of view. It was not sexual assault, rape, or anything else remotely close to what they were accused of.

That's pretty much the crux of it to me - the "somthing" untoward that I've said has happened. The whole emphasis of guilty v innocent etc was mistakenly brought into the thread by Timmah, and he was also picked up on that by other posters earlier on.

They've acted beyond what most people would find morally acceptable, and of course they've taken advantage of the situation. They've had sex when sex was on offer. To suggest that they did this knowing of the girl was of a troubled mental state though is to also suggest that they were aware of her mental state. That's giving a bit too much credit to the average person I believe. They took it on face value.

 

[bartman]

Think logically. Why was Breton pleading for the seventh player to come forward? If they knew who it was, they would have dragged him in for questioning. If they didn't know who it was, then they also can't know that it was a player. At the most, it could have only been a seventh person. You can't know that it was a player without knowing which player. To claim otherwise defies logic. The way I see it, this could only have been an attempt at drawing a mystery seventh player forward that existed purely based on the accusers claims.

I think you lost me in the circles of logic there.... Personally I'd have no trouble believing that it was an ambit claim if it was Bretton now coming out and admitting it in a media interview, not McEvoy who is no longer on the force and part of the first three days of the investigation.

I think that was a poor choice of words on Noad's part. Of course something happened. Sex happened. It happened in a resort pool. I'd call that lewd behaviour. Sinister behavour? Comes down to opinion really.

We pretty much agree. It's not on when you're representing your club and the league as part of a tour match in a country town, and brought the game into disrepute.

According to the anonymous player in this interview, it was because they were told that she would have to basically admit it to be found guilty. That was not going to happen. In another interview (which I can't find), I'm quite certain that McEvoy states that they considered laying such charges very early on in the investigation. Then Breton took over.

Getting the players to admit it to be found guilty is probably where the other side of investigations stalled as well. That's what happens when something is murky and inconclusive and has two sides to the story. Again, I just don't take what McEvoy says as gospel, and would prefer to hear Bretton's side before jumping to any conclusions based on just the first three days.

No. We know that sex took place in a morally questionable location. That's not 'nothing'. It's questionable behaviour, morally deprived behaviour even depending on your point of view. It was not sexual assault, rape, or anything else remotely close to what they were accused of.

But not far enough removed for a charge of public mischief for a false accusation to be applied either.

They've acted beyond what most people would find morally acceptable, and of course they've taken advantage of the situation. They've had sex when sex was on offer. To suggest that they did this knowing of the girl was of a troubled mental state though is to also suggest that they were aware of her mental state. That's giving a bit too much credit to the average person I believe. They took it on face value.

Fair enough.

But nothing I've read backs up the poorly worded case that nothing happened, or Timmah's assertion that no charges laid means not guilty and/or nothing happened.

You describe things very well, and all I'm saying is that Magnay and about 50% of the population would still believe that what happened was "untoward" (for want of a better word). And that won't change in a hurry, least of all through through McEvoy's interview.

if anything had come of his claims and complaint to Maroney from two-three years ago (other than cheap publicity for a publishing deal) then maybe people would be inclined to review their opinions regarding the situation, but as I've said, it's in the murky moral area and it's not to do with charges or innocence and guilt.

 

[Timmah]

I haven't assumed that. The implication and tone of your discussion is the opposite - that you seem to believe that the Bulldogs are guilty. That's what I'm taking issue with.

 

[bartman]

I haven't assumed that.

Really? Two of your posts from earlier in the thread.

False accusations of rape aren't funny either but our players, club and supporters have put up with them for 5 years now, most of us without complaint.

(Big claim there, bordering on the libellious?)

The two bolded phrases mean the same thing, twit. No rape = not guilty.

(Stating exactly what it is that you are saying you haven't assumed.)

The implication and tone of your discussion is the opposite - that you seem to believe that the Bulldogs are guilty. That's what I'm taking issue with.

Again, you're the one who is introducing the whole guilty-innocent dimension, when it is not what has been discussed by Magnay, myself or anyone else.

It must be the paranoia Timmah, do yourself a favour and take issue with that!

Again, a reminder that having no charges laid or a not guilty verdict does not mean that (in Malcolm Noad's) words, "nothing happened at Coffs". You might like to join Malcolm in "believing" that, but 50% of the population and Magnay are also free to instead believe something happened - something, that while not illegal in the sense that charges could be brought or proved, did bring the game into disrepute.

You can't magic that away Timmah. It will remain murky forever, unless there was a charge of public mischief proven against the woman concerned.

 

[Loudstrat]

It mainly remains murky because of the media trial. If there were no charges laid, as in the Bronco toilet tryst last year, you have to accept that, and assume nothing happened.

If it wasn't an NRL club and the same thing happened, you wouldn't know about it at all.

 

[ibeme]

Think logically. Why was Breton pleading for the seventh player to come forward? If they knew who it was, they would have dragged him in for questioning. If they didn't know who it was, then they also can't know that it was a player. At the most, it could have only been a seventh person. You can't know that it was a player without knowing which player. To claim otherwise defies logic. The way I see it, this could only have been an attempt at drawing a mystery seventh player forward that existed purely based on the accusers claims.

Ok, clear your mind.

Who was the seventh player who witnessed this?

 

[Timmah]

Really? Two of your posts from earlier in the thread.


(Big claim there, bordering on the libellious?)


(Stating exactly what it is that you are saying you haven't assumed.)

Again, you're the one who is introducing the whole guilty-innocent dimension, when it is not what has been discussed by Magnay, myself or anyone else.

It must be the paranoia Timmah, do yourself a favour and take issue with that!

Again, a reminder that having no charges laid or a not guilty verdict does not mean that (in Malcolm Noad's) words, "nothing happened at Coffs". You might like to join Malcolm in "believing" that, but 50% of the population and Magnay are also free to instead believe something happened - something, that while not illegal in the sense that charges could be brought or proved, did bring the game into disrepute.

You can't magic that away Timmah. It will remain murky forever, unless there was a charge of public mischief proven against the woman concerned.

My problem as it stands right now is that the way you're carrying on seems to me to be an implication that the Bulldogs were guilty. That's where I'm coming from right now and your attitude in that respect disgusts me.

 

[Green Machine]

My original comment in reply to your questions was that Magnay obviously believes that something (untoward) happened in Coffs.

No, I think Magnay thought a rape did occur and I think she thought the only reason it didn’t to court was because the DPP thought there was insufficient evidence to press charges against Bulldogs players

And I believe about 50% of the general public (still) believe the same. Survey your (non-RL fan) friends and test it out...

That is true. I would say the majority of people I have come into contact with who have an axe to grind with Rugby League think that a rape occurred. I would say the majority of people I come into contact with who dislike the Bulldogs believe that a rape occurred. The other day, one bloke told me that a certain player involved in the alleged rape moved to an interstate club because the NSW police were after him. I mentioned to him that that the player's interstate club play games in NSW nearly every second weekend and if he was guilty, would he not be arrested at the airport?
I think the majority of people think a rape occurred because of a link to violent gang rapes occurred in South West Sydney prior to the alleged rape at Coffs Harbour. When the story came out, I found it amazing that both Sydney Papers ran with photos of the Bulldogs playing beach cricket prior to a trial at the Gold Coast with a smiling Hazem El Masri in the middle of photo. To me, it seemed like a dog whistle.

Like it or not, the Gary McEvoy interview didn't command headlines and make 50% of the population aware of his point of view, let alone change their mind based on one report. As stated above, I'm just getting around to reading it myself now.

I thought an intelligent bloke like yourself would have checked all the facts before forming an opinion

My debate with Timmah (and Malcolm Noad) is about whether "not guilty" of a charge equals "nothing happened"... clearly there is a murky in-between area where the Bulldogs incident in Coffs will forever lie. Whatever McEvoy has to say is unlikely to change that for many people - I'll get back to you after I've read it.

Can’t wait.

 

[bartman]

Ok, clear your mind.

Who was the seventh player who witnessed this?

Hang on, I don't know who the first 4-6 are yet... :sarcasm:

 

[bartman]

My problem as it stands right now is that the way you're carrying on seems to me to be an implication that the Bulldogs were guilty.

Then you're missing the point, still...

That's where I'm coming from right now and your attitude in that respect disgusts me.

If I wanted to say they were guilty of charges that were never laid against them, I'd just come out and say that... But what I'm saying is about public perception and has nothing to do with black or white legal innocence and guilt, and until your paranoia drops and you can understand that, you'll remain disgusted I guess...

 

[bartman]

I thought an intelligent bloke like yourself would have checked all the facts before forming an opinion

Thanks, but even after the McEvoy interview, I'm still searching for these facts.

Can’t wait.

It's back a few hours/pages now. It wasn't the holy grail of proof and had some holes in it, imo.

I'd accept similar comments if they'd come from Bretton himself rather than an ex-cop with a book to plug, and I'd accept a proven charge of public mischief. But without either of those, no-one can rightly claim "nothing happened" just as no-one can claim "something illegal happened".

That's my point, in the face of someone in this thread who was claiming no charges actually proves something... it doesn't prove or disprove anything, and the issue is destined to remain "murky", with divided opinions and no proof either way.

 

[Timmah]

:? So Bretton's got cred as an ex-copper, but McEvoy doesn't.

You're doing more backflips than Nathan Blacklock in a post-try celebration...

 

[ibeme]

Hang on, I don't know who the first 4-6 are yet... :sarcasm:

Hypothetical Interview

Interviewee: There was another player
Interviewer: Who was he?
Interviewee: I don't know
Interviewer: Was he a player?
Interviewee: Yes.
Interviewer: But you don't know which one?
Interviewee: No
Interviewer: Here are photos of all the players that were in town that night, can you point out which one?
Interviewee: No
Interviewer: Then it wasn't a player?
Interviewee: It was a player.
Interviewer: How do you know it was a player if you can't tell me which player it was? It could have been anyone.

Hypothetical Press Conference (Imagine journalists questioned the claim):

Speaker: We know there was a seventh player present at the pool, and we want that player to come forward
Journo: Who was the seventh player?
Speaker: We don't know.
Journo: How do you know there was a seventh player?
Speaker: The alleged victim has told us that there was a seventh player
Journo: Does she know who it was?
Speaker: No.
Journo: Then how do you know it was a player? It could have been anyone.

See the flaw in the logic that there was an unknown seventh player? Either they were known, or they don't know it was a seventh player.

That's putting aside the evidence that supports there only being 4 players present at the time.

 

[bartman]

:? So Bretton's got cred as an ex-copper, but McEvoy doesn't.

You're doing more backflips than Nathan Blacklock in a post-try celebration...

I didn't know Bretton was an ex-copper until you've now said so. McEvoy is referred to as an ex-copper in the Stateline link, Bretton is not?

Either way, it's one ex-cop's word against another, and I'd have less problem believing McEvoy's assertions about anything beyond the first 3 days of investigation if something ahd come of his complaint to Maroney, or if Bretton himself admitted what McEvoy has claimed.

 

[bartman]

See the flaw in the logic that there was an unknown seventh player? Either they were known, or they don't know it was a seventh player.

That's putting aside the evidence that supports there only being 4 players present at the time.

Sorry, It's Sunday night and you're losing me...

The link has Bretton claiming there was a seventh player, and they knew who it was because someone told them. He implies that it was a player that told them he was the seventh present, or have I read that quote wrong?

The link also has McEvoy who was in charge of the first three days of the investigation saying that he couldn't place more than four players at the scene. Two different stories, one in the context of spruiking a book deal through an interview, and the other not clarified any further, even after McEvoy's complaint to Maroney?

Sorry, but it's all hypothetical and circumstantial to prove anything either way. Which is kind of why there were no charges laid or proven either way, and which is kind of my whole point? That is, it will remain murky, and people will have differing opinions and beliefs on the events.

 

[ibeme]

Sorry, It's Sunday night and you're losing me...

The link has Bretton claiming there was a seventh player, and they knew who it was because someone told them. He implies that it was a player that told them he was the seventh present, or have I read that quote wrong?

They didn't know who it was. That's why they were pleading for the seventh player to come forward. Do you think they'd be making a public plea for him to come forward if they knew who it was? No. They'd have him in for questioning as soon as they knew who it was. As it turns out, the supposed seventh player never came forward, so they never got to question the supposed seventh player. It was a flawed tactic that made no sense for the reasons I've explained in this thread. You cannot know that there was a seventh player without knowing who it was.

The link also has McEvoy who was in charge of the first three days of the investigation saying that he couldn't place more than four players at the scene. Two different stories, one in the context of spruiking a book deal through an interview, and the other not clarified any further, even after McEvoy's complaint to Maroney?

The evidence supported those claims from go to woe.

We've already seen Breton pull out the seventh player tactic, and hopefully by now you understand how flawed that tactic was. Where does that leave his credibility?

It will remain murky whilever people refuse to accept the findings of the reasoning of the DPP which was outlined in the link I posted earlier.

 

[bartman]

They didn't know who it was. That's why they were pleading for the seventh player to come forward. Do you think they'd be making a public plea for him to come forward if they knew who it was? No. They'd have him in for questioning as soon as they knew who it was. As it turns out, the supposed seventh player never came forward, so they never got to question the supposed seventh player. It was a flawed tactic that made no sense for the reasons I've explained in this thread. You cannot know that there was a seventh player without knowing who it was.

Ok, that seems to make sense, a flawed tactic to get more information. But I've lost track of the point about the fifth/sixth/seventh player?

The evidence supported those claims from go to woe.

We've already seen Breton pull out the seventh player tactic, and hopefully by now you understand how flawed that tactic was. Where does that leave his credibility?

Um, the same level of credibility as any investigating copper that uses a similar tactic in appealing for public information? I don't think it's uncommon a tactic, and I'm not sure it relates to credibility in terms of other statements, but perhaps that's just me.

It will remain murky whilever people refuse to accept the findings of the reasoning of the DPP which was outlined in the link I posted earlier.

That there wasn't enough evidence to lay charges? That's been accepted. Discussion in terms of public opinion goes beyond charges and the DPP.

One of your earlier posts touched more closely on the issues imo, the one recognising how people will retain a split moral reaction to the events that did occur at Coffs and are not under dispute, events that brought the game into disrepute regardless of charges, and statements by ex-cops about investigation of whether to lay charges up there.

The fact that people (including Magnay) have a right to retain their divided personal opinion on those events is the point I am making, in contrast to Timmah who had like Malcolm Noad suggested that because no charges were laid we all should automatically believe nothing happened at Coffs. Wasn't Noad made to retract or apologise for that statement?

 

[ibeme]

Ok, that seems to make sense, a flawed tactic to get more information. But I've lost track of the point about the fifth/sixth/seventh player?

Forget fifth/sixth/seventh, and simplify it to being another player who was claimed to be present but could not be identified, and therefore could not be confirmed to be an actual player despite Breton stating that they knew it was a player.

Wasn't Noad made to retract or apologise for that statement?

From memory, he apologised and said that he meant to include the word illegal.