Confessions of a Bulldog: inside football's darkest scandal

[ibeme]

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.

From the ABC report in relation the the DPP documents. I've already posted this.

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.

 

[bartman]

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.

Yep, think I've got that. Still don't think it has anything to do with credibility between Bretton and McEvoy though. One speaks about a book he's hoping to finish... that to me is a bigger trigger re judging credibility.

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

Ok, I can happy agree nothing illegal happened, in terms of the legal definition of proof. I don't think anyone would or could argue otherwise.

My point has been that opinion outside of Dogs fans in the population in general will be split over whether something "untoward" (note, word chosen rather than illegal) happened at Coffs, and hence Magnay's piece is just reflecting that divided moral opinion on what will always now remain a murky issue.

I'm sorry, but the McEvoy quotes don't convince me as an individual that the Coffs events are now somehow crystal clear without some further corroboration. But each to their own, and hence my estimate of a 50-50 divided opinion.

 

[Timmah]

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.

Most investigating officers appealing for public information are a bit more straightforward. While they need to base that appeal on the information supplied by the alleged victim, in this instance the alleged victim has supplied unverifiable information - claiming a seventh player was a witness, is unable to name or visually place one, but being certain he's a player? Could've been Joe Bloggs from Lismore for all we know. THAT is why Bretton's credibility is shot here.

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?

Where do you get that ludicrous assumption? IN THIS THREAD I have stated I have no doubt something did happen. Whatever incident that may be is, based on the evidence available, NOT an illegal incident. That is, not a rape. Noone was ever charged with one, there was not enough evidence to support one occuring, yet the opinion you're sharing seems to indicate you think it did.

If that's not the case, please say so - but if you do in fact think there was a rape committed, please explain on what basis you believe it to be the case. THAT is something I so far think you've failed to do.

 

[bartman]

From the ABC report in relation the the DPP documents. I've already posted this.

I realise that. But unfortunately to me it's not clear what that means... does it mean no sex at all took place? Does it mean that consent was recorded? Does it mean that sex but not group sex took place? It's too vague in the ABC report for me to conclude anything I'm afraid...

Other than just exactly what it says - that "it wouldn't have been possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a sexual assault took place" and that "the opportunity for gang rape to have occurred that morning, didn't exist". You realise that gang rape is one specific description among many different scenarios that could comprise sexual assault, don't you? The two sentences seem to be referring to different things to me, and should not be combined to then infer something more...

 

[bartman]

Most investigating officers appealing for public information are a bit more straightforward. While they need to base that appeal on the information supplied by the alleged victim, in this instance the alleged victim has supplied unverifiable information - claiming a seventh player was a witness, is unable to name or visually place one, but being certain he's a player? Could've been Joe Bloggs from Lismore for all we know. THAT is why Bretton's credibility is shot here.

Ibeme has just given the example that it was all a tactic for more information, not something Bretton was claiming. I can see why you'd want his credibility to be shot, but I personally don't see the use of that tactic as a reason to discredit everything else that he has said regarding the case. Would be happy to change my mind if anything had come from McEvoy's supposed claims to Moroney... but I assume since that was over two years ago that thy came to nothing?

Where do you get that ludicrous assumption?

God Tim, must I go back and quote your posts at you again? Hold on a minute...

 

[Timmah]

My point has been that opinion outside of Dogs fans in the population in general will be split over whether something "untoward" (note, word chosen rather than illegal) happened at Coffs, and hence Magnay's piece is just reflecting that divided moral opinion on what will always now remain a murky issue.

Do you think that's fair on the club? That the whole club is tainted by something that in some likelihood never happen?

Do you think it's fair that people like ibeme, myself, Bulldog Force - your normal, run of the mill Bulldog fans have to put up with sh*t about rapists and that rubbish every time we dare wear our jerseys in public (and no, that's not a dramatisation)...?

The complete and utter lack of evidence was overshadowed by the trial-by-media the investigation endured through it's course. At the end of the day, the fans of the club, the administrators and most of the players suffered. I'll never begrudge the fine and I'll not deny there was some sort of silly-buggers going on, but it'll be a cold day in hell before you see me accepting something illegal did happen. Public opinion might be "50-50" but facts on that matter are far more in the 90-10 department in favour of "no rape occured".

 

[Timmah]

God Tim, must I go back and quote your posts at you again? Hold on a minute...

Your predilection for selective quoting is borderline pathetic. Read the next line, you goose.

 

[bartman]

I think the Coffs paranoia is really kicking in with you Timmah, at least Ibeme is making well structured points in discussion.

This should cover it...

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.

Next...

Here you have claimed that a false allegation of rape occurred. This is incorrect. It is in fact libelious in my opinion, unless a public mischief charge had been laid and proven against the woman. Do you see my point?

Do you see where I think you are saying nothing happened at Coffs as a result of your incorrect post about a false rape allegation? All you or I or Magnay can say is what Ibeme's DPP quote says, based on the available evidence, it wouldn't have been possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a sexual assault took place.

No, they didnt know there was no rape, they knew they were not guilty.
Either way, its no laughing matter .
But continue to try and justify it.

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

Insane Ink makes the same point I've taken pages to make. That not guilty in any case does not mean nothing happened. It just means not guilty in a court of law.

Do you see my point? Do you see that in making my point I am not claiming that anything illegal happened, given that there was not enough evidence for charges to be laid? Do you also see that what I have been talking about isn't about verdicts in a court of law, since charges were not laid?

I've been talking about public opinion, and people's freedom to have one. I've acknowledged that the issue is far from clear - in part because there was also not enough evidence to lay this public mischief charge that McEvoy mentions. If we are to assume innocence for all Bulldogs, we then have to assume innocence of the woman, using that very same logic.

You seem to think it's black or white, with us or against us, when all I'm saying is the reason why it will remain murky, and why Magnay and the population's split opinions on the issue are both understandable, and (since I don't accept McEvoy's interviews as proof or disproof of anything) acceptable.

You seem to have a problem with that. Your tone and paranoia, plus the above quotes and your line of argument leave me with the sense that you feel that everyone has to admit that nothing happened at Coffs before you let it go? Instead of accepting people's rights to have divided opinions on this issue, in much the same way people might have divided opinions on the war in Iraq, or whether Howard was a good or bad PM, or any other issue in the public domain where one correct answer can never be conclusively proven either way.

yet the opinion you're sharing seems to indicate you think it did.

If that's not the case, please say so - but if you do in fact think there was a rape committed, please explain on what basis you believe it to be the case. THAT is something I so far think you've failed to do.

Hopefully that's answered all of that ^^^ . If it hasn't, I'm not sure I can help you anymore. I'm not saying a rape occurred - my words have been about something "untoward" (note: not illegal) that has brought the game into disrepute.

 

[ibeme]

I realise that. But unfortunately to me it's not clear what that means... does it mean no sex at all took place? Does it mean that consent was recorded? Does it mean that sex but not group sex took place? It's too vague in the ABC report for me to conclude anything I'm afraid...

Other than just exactly what it says - that "it wouldn't have been possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a sexual assault took place" and that "the opportunity for gang rape to have occurred that morning, didn't exist". You realise that gang rape is one specific description among many different scenarios that could comprise sexual assault, don't you? The two sentences seem to be referring to different things to me, and should not be combined to then infer something more...

It means that the players should no longer be considered to be rapists, regardless of how much people hate to concede that.

Considering the girl who made the accusation claimed in the victim statement (which was subsequently not supported by evidence) that she was anally, orally and vaginally raped, I'd say that they were clearly being accused of a gang rape. That's how serious these accusations were, and given that the evidence and witness statements were inconsistent with her claims, and completely consistent with the players claims, it means that the players did not commit the crimes that they were accused of, as backed up by the DPP

 

[bartman]

Do you think that's fair on the club? That the whole club is tainted by something that in some likelihood never happen?

God, I've never even got into that in this thread... my view more is that it's a fact of life. You can't change the past. It wouldn't have happened had certain players own actions at Coffs (and the club's supervisory procedures/policies) not allowed for them to be in the position where such an allegation was taken so seriously by police.

Do you think it's fair that people like ibeme, myself, Bulldog Force - your normal, run of the mill Bulldog fans have to put up with sh*t about rapists and that rubbish every time we dare wear our jerseys in public (and no, that's not a dramatisation)...?

I've never labelled a Bulldogs fan a rapist, or comment to them that their players are rapists. I'm not doubting your word that it's happened, but why should I - in putting forward a view that a Magnay article was a good valid article - bear the brunt of all your pend up angst and paranoia about it. As I've said, if the players involved in the behaviour at Coffs and the club's own supervisory policies not created this in the first place, you guys as fans wouldn't be in that situation.

The complete and utter lack of evidence was overshadowed by the trial-by-media the investigation endured through it's course. At the end of the day, the fans of the club, the administrators and most of the players suffered. I'll never begrudge the fine and I'll not deny there was some sort of silly-buggers going on, but it'll be a cold day in hell before you see me accepting something illegal did happen. Public opinion might be "50-50" but facts on that matter are far more in the 90-10 department in favour of "no rape occured".

AGAIN you are confusing my statements in this thread, and introducing the Illegal/inncoent/guilty element, which is not what I am talking about... until you take a step back and re-read the posts in the cold light of day, you will not understand the point I am trying to make about public opinion goes beyond legality, guilt or innocence of charges. *sigh*

Your predilection for selective quoting is borderline pathetic. Read the next line, you goose.

I can't source quotes from beyond the last 30 posts when using the reply box Tim. When you asked me to show you where you had said those things, I had to go and find them (again - I'd already made a post with those exact quotes before in this thread).

In the following reply I quoted your remaining sentence, for what it's worth :crazy:

 

[bartman]

It means that the players should no longer be considered to be rapists, regardless of how much people hate to concede that.

So rape is different to sexual assualt, and saying that there is no opportunity for gang rape is different or saying there was no opportunity for sexual assualt - the term used in the preceding sentence.

I don't mean to be narky, but I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim the players were rapists? I haven't heard anyone say that for years in fact, other than bulldogs supporters on here...

I'm certainly not saying they raped the girl, since no charges were laid. But I'm also not saying that nothing at all happened... and that is why I'm claiming public moral opinion on the events at Coffs remains divided. It's all about the acts that were admitted to have taken place.

That's how serious these accusations were, and given that the evidence and witness statements were inconsistent with her claims, and completely consistent with the players claims, it means that the players did not commit the crimes that they were accused of, as backed up by the DPP

Sorry to be a smart after all this, but we already know all that Ibeme... no-one is arguing that players were guilty of charges that were not even laid. And I fail to see your point?

Equally no-one should be insisting that everyone left Coffs happy. Or that nothing happened, or that no disrepute was brought onto the game by the actions of those present. Or that everyone must tow some line and never admit that public opinion on the behaviour that has been admitted to have taken place remains divided. Or that everyone must hate every Magnay article on sight...

 

[ibeme]

So rape is different to sexual assualt, and saying that there is no opportunity for gang rape is different or saying there was no opportunity for sexual assualt - the term used in the preceding sentence.

I don't care what term you want to use to describe it. They did not do it. Semantics is irrelevant.

I don't mean to be narky, but I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim the players were rapists? I haven't heard anyone say that for years in fact, other than bulldogs supporters on here...

I responded to a post a couple of pages back from someone who still believes that the girl had to receive medical treatment to repair the damage. This was refuted as a total fabrication by Breton in a press conference shortly after it was reported in the media. That poster obviously believes that the players committed such a horrendous crime.

I'm certainly not saying they raped the girl, since no charges were laid. But I'm also not saying that nothing at all happened... and that is why I'm claiming public moral opinion on the events at Coffs remains divided. It's all about the acts that were admitted to have taken place.

We know their behaviour is morally questionable to a large portion of the community, but providing it was consensual, it's really only comes down to personal opinion.

Sorry to be a smart after all this, but we already know all that Ibeme... no-one is arguing that players were guilty of charges that were not even laid. And I fail to see your point?

Yes they are. See my first comment in this post. Plenty of people still believe that a gang rape occurred.

Equally no-one should be insisting that everyone left Coffs happy. Or that nothing happened, or that no disrepute was brought onto the game by the actions of those present. Or that everyone must tow some line and never admit that public opinion on the behaviour that has been admitted to have taken place remains divided. Or that everyone must hate every Magnay article on sight...

Nobody is claiming that all was rosey. Condemn the players based on what they did, not based on what they were accused of doing. That's the main point. The players and the club took hits based on the public perception that was driven largely by a media frenzy. As soon as Ray Hadley read out that victim statement, the damage was done. The club and the players were made to pay the price for what they were accused of doing, not for what they actually did, and there is a huge difference between the two.

 

[bartman]

I don't care what term you want to use to describe it. They did not do it. Semantics is irrelevant.

Semantics is irrelevant? yet you've been relying on the semantics of quotes from reports of the DPP documents and McEvoy's interview quotes. Ok then...

I responded to a post a couple of pages back from someone who still believes that the girl had to receive medical treatment to repair the damage. This was refuted as a total fabrication by Breton in a press conference shortly after it was reported in the media. That poster obviously believes that the players committed such a horrendous crime.

Fair enough. Timmah will be disappointed to hear that Bretton's credibility means that we can diregard that statement of his though....

We know their behaviour is morally questionable to a large portion of the community, but providing it was consensual, it's really only comes down to personal opinion.

Which is what I've been talking about in my posts in this thread, whilst Timmah engages in some weird dance about legality and innocence etc.

Yes they are. See my first comment in this post. Plenty of people still believe that a gang rape occurred.

Ok, I'm not sure I read that post exactly the same way, but fair enough.

Nobody is claiming that all was rosey. Condemn the players based on what they did, not based on what they were accused of doing. That's the main point.

And that's the point I've been making - that's exactly what the public opinion of say 50% of the population (including Magnay in this article) are merely doing, imo.

The players and the club took hits based on the public perception that was driven largely by a media frenzy. As soon as Ray Hadley read out that victim statement, the damage was done. The club and the players were made to pay the price for what they were accused of doing, not for what they actually did, and there is a huge difference between the two.

Fair enough, but I'd suggest that the vast majority of people are doing the latter, as time has definitely moved on.

It's the occasional reactionary bulldogs fan (like a certain one in this thread...) that I notice more often going on about all that, but failing to see everyone else has moved beyond illegal, guilty, innocent and past media frenzies to actually basing their judgements on the agreed events - especially given the current climate around player behaviour and its importance to the future of the game.

I reckon people will leave Coffs well and truly behind when all Bulldogs fans can also leave it behind?

 

[Timmah]

It's the occasional reactionary bulldogs fan (like a certain one in this thread...) that I notice more often going on about all that, but failing to see everyone else has moved beyond illegal, guilty, innocent and past media frenzies to actually basing their judgements on the agreed events - especially given the current climate around player behaviour and its importance to the future of the game.

But you see, people haven't. You might claim to and that's fine but there are so many people who lack education on the matter and use it as a default point in any footy banter or argument against a Bulldogs fan. I've had it happen to me, I've seen it happen to others, and yes, still 5 years on.

BTW, you've done very well to "dance" yourself around the guilty/innocent/not guilty subject matter, anytime it enters into discussion you immediately distance yourself from it. It's completely relevant to the discussion and saying it isn't shows how little you comprehend about the matter. I highly doubt you've properly read through that Stateline interview.

I reckon people will leave Coffs well and truly behind when all Bulldogs fans can also leave it behind?

Pretty sure Jacquelin Magnay and the player in question are responsible for this debate taking place. I haven't sat here all day every day since 2004 posting about the allegations, but it's up for discussion now and I'm discussing it.

 

[bartman]

But you see, people haven't. You might claim to and that's fine but there are so many people who lack education on the matter and use it as a default point in any footy banter or argument against a Bulldogs fan. I've had it happen to me, I've seen it happen to others, and yes, still 5 years on.

Oh well. That's a shame. I guess some people's idea of footy banter is a bit less evolved even as years and playing squads pass by.

BTW, you've done very well to "dance" yourself around the guilty/innocent/not guilty subject matter, anytime it enters into discussion you immediately distance yourself from it. It's completely relevant to the discussion and saying it isn't shows how little you comprehend about the matter. I highly doubt you've properly read through that Stateline interview.

It's relevant to you maybe, but it's not relevant to the points that I've raised in this thread - about Magnay and the general public's right to hold their own moral opinion about behaviour (note: legality irrelevant) that brought the game into disrepute. It is the absence of any charges, proven guilt or proven innocence regarding the players version and the woman's version that specifically allows the murky vaccuum for people to be able to form their own judgement.

It's not dancing around... it's like someone's said that it's a cloudy day, and the next person said it looks like rain. They are two entirely different discussion points, the second one has moved past the first one. If you can move past your focus on charges, proven guilty or assumed clarity of innocence - as well as your personal experience of receiving the sharp end of footy banter - and consider the issues of likely public opinion, and the public's right to hold differing opinions to yourself, then we can agree to disagree.

Pretty sure Jacquelin Magnay and the player in question are responsible for this debate taking place. I haven't sat here all day every day since 2004 posting about the allegations, but it's up for discussion now and I'm discussing it.

I have read the Stateline interview in full (twice) and I'm sorry if the selected bits that mean the most to you aren't the selected bits that stand out the most to me. But everyone's different. People can read the bible and end up focussing on different things too.

All I'm saying is that in discussing the allegations and the issues surrounding them (like current public opinion), you (not other supporters) seem to be the one that always harks back to the fact that no charges were laid (and now this McEvoy fluff piece) claiming that is proof that people shouldn't think badly of the situation.

I'm not going to spend another whole day repeating ground we've gone over, as I'm working today. I understand you feel passionate about it, but in my view that shouldn't extend to claiming that any alternate position or opinion on the matter isn't just as valid as the one you've chosen to follow.

 

[rufus youngblood]

My gut feeling says Mason..

Dont know why...

Mase was with el masri and i highly doubt el masri would bullsh*t about anything esp something that serious, i know of 5 of the guys that were the target of investigations, i will not name them because thats there business and this case is done and dusted

 

[bartman]

Mase was with el masri and i highly doubt el masri would bullsh*t about anything esp something that serious, i know of 5 of the guys that were the target of investigations, i will not name them because thats there business and this case is done and dusted

But McEvoy said there was only 4 :crazy: :lol:

 

[Timmah]

So now you're believing hearsay from a forum member over a police officer involved in the investigation process? :lol:

The way you've formed your opinion is questionable, if not laughable.

 

[rufus youngblood]

So now you're believing hearsay from a forum member over a police officer involved in the investigation process? :lol:

The way you've formed your opinion is questionable, if not laughable.

There were initially 5 players who were of interest, in th end they had no evidence to convict anyone, Mason was not one of those 5.

What is your problem with that timmah???????

Only 1 of these blokes is still at your club anyway

 

[bartman]

So now you're believing hearsay from a forum member over a police officer involved in the investigation process? :lol:

The way you've formed your opinion is questionable, if not laughable.

Glad you got the joke Timmah... it was directed at the almighty pedestal that three-days-and-a-book-on-the-way McEvoy is held upon, and was at your expense after all ;-).