Greg Bird charged and released by Sharks

[myanonymoususername]

Footy star's manager says 'no deal here'

By Kate Sikora, Kara lawrence and Clementine Cuneo
August 27, 2008 02:23am

Article from:
Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email

LESS than 24 hours earlier, a court ordered NRL star Greg Bird to have no contact with his hospitalised girlfriend, either "directly or through a third person".

But yesterday afternoon, Bird's manager Gavin Orr was snapped by The Daily Telegraph at the Prince of Wales Hospital, in Sydney, where he confirmed he visited Kathryn "Katie" Milligan.
Mr Orr confirmed he had been at the hospital to visit Ms Milligan about 4.30pm for a one-hour visit, but denied he was there as a representative of the 24-year-old Cronulla Sharks player.
"I'm here as her friend," he said, adding he only wanted to check on her welfare.
The Daily Telegraph then asked whether he was there to broker a deal with Ms Milligan, or pass on any messages from Bird.
"No," he said. He refused to comment on Ms Milligan's condition.
Bird is charged with maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm on Ms Milligan, 24, after allegedly glassing her in the face at his Cronulla unit on Sunday morning.
Police have alleged in court that Bird tried to implicate his friend, golfer Brent Watson, in the attack, while Watson was in fact playing in a golf tournament that morning.
The court was told Bird allegedly texted Mr Watson, saying he had blamed him for Ms Milligan's "accident", and saying "my manager is helping me sort this sh*t out".
At Sutherland Local Court on Monday morning, Bird was granted bail with strict conditions - including posting a $5000 surety and that he not breach conditions of an interim Apprehended Violence Order.
The court ordered he was not to contact Ms Milligan - a law student - Mr Watson, "or any other prosecution witness either directly or through a third person".
Ms Milligan's parents were believed to be en route to Sydney from the US late yesterday. Ms Milligan is expected to be released from hospital by the end of the week.
Meanwhile, Mr Watson's father Mick Watson yesterday told The Daily Telegraph his son was an up-and-coming golfer, ready to make his name on the professional circuit.
The 23-year-old from the Hunter Valley was back out on the practice green yesterday, preparing for the Australian Teams Championships next week in Sydney.
"I'm certainly sorry he got dragged into this, it's an unfortunate thing to happen, particularly while he is pursuing his career in golf," Mr Watson Sr said.
Brent Watson and Bird had only been living together for several weeks, while Watson was meeting training commitments in Sydney ahead of next week's tournament.
Sources close to Bird said he had told friends he had broken up with Ms Milligan two weeks ago but they apparently reconciled. The pair first met last year in Las Vegas and stayed in touch, with Ms Milligan moving to Sydney at Bird's request two months ago.
Bird's mother Iris was understood to be travelling from her Maitland home last night to be with the disgraced rugby league star.

From http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24248823-421,00.html

*cough*cough ....."bullsh*t" *cough*cough

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Well the court case isnt till 2 days after the G.F.

Another likely scenario, Bird and his legal team will arrange a plea or pay to make this whole situation go away. Given that this may take a few weeks to play out, there is no reason why Bird won't be free to play for Manly on grand final day.

 

[sharko]

According to that article the girl may be able to leave the hospital at the end of this week..thats encouraging at least.

I assume she will have to find a new place to live unless she shacks up with Bird again..it may have been a lovers tiff go badly awry but they can still kiss and make up and who knows what happens with any proceedings after that.

A couple of Hello magazine style pictures of Bird and his women having a romantic dinner with flowers etc..I reckon the sponsors would approach Cronulla to have him reinstated quick smart.

Time will tell!

 

[Alex28]

Orr is a paid representative of Bird. Surely he is not stupid enough to figure he can get away from seeing someone who has an AVO against his client?

Just another point...Bird's mate was not just out having a game of golf...he was playing in the NSW Foursomes Championships - an elite amateur tournament. How on earth did Bird think that saying that Watson did it would fly? Given he teed off at 7:48am at Bankstown, he would have had to leave Cronulla around 6-ish (to allow for checking in, warming up, et al). So what was Bird doing waiting 2.5 hours to get some help for her? There would be around 150 competitors (not to mention officials) at that tournament who could vouch for Watson being there...

Bird is so screwed...

 

[Captain BF]

Another likely scenario, Bird and his legal team will arrange a plea or pay to make this whole situation go away. Given that this may take a few weeks to play out, there is no reason why Bird won't be free to play for Manly on grand final day.

RR, i dislike Manly as much as the next person, but you're an idiot!

 

[[furrycat]]

no, you misunderstood my point

if she declines to press charges or make a statement, then everything they have is circumstantial

how would they convict without her statement

imo, he is guilty, but thats not the point im debating here

i am attempting to look at this from a legal perspective - and the law sometimes works in mysterious ways, which it has to when protecting the innocent in other cases

imo, i think she will refrain from providing a statement which will cease any further action being taken against him

You are wrong on that one mate. This is a part of our legal system that prevents offenders from getting off purely based on the fact a victim refuses to testify or make a statement. On a GBH charge the police can act on behalf of the victim even if they choose not to make it official.

And its happened many times before; if there is enough to prove that Bird put the glass in her face, she doesn't have to testify for a conviction. You CANNOT submit or consent to serious assault (Crown V Brown)

 

[[furrycat]]

if she decides not to press charges, or provide a statement of such, they have no case

they have no witnesses

nothing but a woman saying it was an accident

would a judge sentence a person on that evidence

You don't know what evidence they have. Its possible they have finger prints on several shards of glass; possibly Bird cut himself as well.

And FYI, if it has gone past commital, then the judge obviously agrees there is enough evidence for a conviction. It won't go past a committal if there is belief the police have no real evidence.

 

[[furrycat]]

Agree totally Spide. If I was Crown prosecutor I'd be thinking my case looked pretty shaky atm. If nothing happens, let the boy play. Yes the sledges will be bad, but the Bulldogs got over it.

We all have to remember that we are not crown prosecutors or investigators in this matter. We don't know what evidence the police have, and we won't know for a while. Despite what the media say, the police would have far more than we think for the charge to go ahead, they just don't tell the media about it.

 

[Helen]

I'm no criminal lawyer but we don't need a victim to necessarily want charges laid for them to be brought before a nsw court.

and I'm guessing that if they did proceed, they would be able to bring in the neighbour's evidence of what both she and bird said (despite being hearsay) because it contradicts what they've said later on.

ANYWAY.

the only point I came in here to make was that it's completely disgusting - the whole situation. whether it was bird or someone else or an accident, the thought of being glassed and almost losing an eye makes me feel sick. poor woman.

It is not hearsay. They heard what was said.

It would be hearsay if the witness told me what they heard and I testified to that.

[SIZE=-1]Second-hand information that usually constitutes inadmissible evidence; hearsay evidence includes statements by a witness recalling events related to the witness by someone else.[/SIZE]

This way

 

[Miller was a legend]

100% right Helen

 

[sooperdooper]

he is gone
i hope they lock him up... see how tough he is then

 

[MSIH]

100% wrong Helen

 

[spider]

You are wrong on that one mate. This is a part of our legal system that prevents offenders from getting off purely based on the fact a victim refuses to testify or make a statement. On a GBH charge the police can act on behalf of the victim even if they choose not to make it official.

And its happened many times before; if there is enough to prove that Bird put the glass in her face, she doesn't have to testify for a conviction. You CANNOT submit or consent to serious assault (Crown V Brown)

i imagine it would be a very difficult case to prosecute if she chooses not to assist the prosecution

You don't know what evidence they have. Its possible they have finger prints on several shards of glass; possibly Bird cut himself as well.

And FYI, if it has gone past commital, then the judge obviously agrees there is enough evidence for a conviction.

i agree, and i would have thought the judge / prosecution were exepecting the co-operation of the victim in the short time following the committal

but imagine if they chose to prosecute and the victim went into bat for the defendant???

im sure there is a possibility to pervert the course of justice beyond the alleged level reported already

not standing up for bird, im just interested in the ways or manner that the due process may run its course

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Rugby league has a history of protecting its name players, regardless of the offence.

It would not surprise me if the matter is settled with an undisclosed payment to the victim who will not press charges and then return to the USA.

Bird will not be convicted and the incident will be regarded as being "blown out of all proportion".

David Gallop will then announce that "ummm, ahh, he is proud of how the club handled it in the centenary year of our game".

 

[Shorty]

Rugby league has a history of protecting its name players, regardless of the offence.

It would not surprise me if the matter is settled with an undisclosed payment to the victim who will not press charges and then return to the USA.

Bird will not be convicted and the incident will be regarded as being "blown out of all proportion".

David Gallop will then announce that "ummm, ahh, he is proud of how the club handled it in the centenary year of our game".

Yeah like Todd Carney?
It disappoints me that people think the NRL are going to try and defend this one.

They can't,and they really don't have a choice in the matter what sort of message would that send?

No,the issue isn't whether Bird will play this year it'll whether Bird will get 5 or 25.

 

[millersnose]

i hate to say it shorty but i think you will be dissappointed

it seems unlikely they will get an incriminating statement from the girl (lets face it it has been several days now)- in fact it seems likely they will get one that exonerates him

i cant see how any forensic evidence will get him

as a sharks fan i would be mortified if he escapes punishment in such weedy circumstances and returns to the club

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

It`s not easy to get 25 years even for murder, especially for a guy with a clean criminal record. If he`s found guilty, I`d say he`ll be on parole the whole length of the sentence. Which will be around 5 years.

 

[dannyboy]

100% wrong Helen

I think you'll find that Helen has it right....if I hear you say that you are a tosser then I could testify to the fact that is what I heard...NOT hearsay. If I heard/read that 'miller was a legend' said he heard you say you were a tosser then all I've got is hearsay.

 

[smeghead]

Hopefully her parents exert a protective influence over the girl and allow her to tell the truth to investigators whatever that may be.

If Bird did what he was accused of it would be very hard for the girl to know what to do. In a foreign country, knowing nobody really and a long way from those she knows best

 

[Miller was a legend]

i hate to say it shorty but i think you will be dissappointed

it seems unlikely they will get an incriminating statement from the girl (lets face it it has been several days now)- in fact it seems likely they will get one that exonerates him

i cant see how any forensic evidence will get him

as a sharks fan i would be mortified if he escapes punishment in such weedy circumstances and returns to the club

The Club is looking at terminating Birds contract regardless of the outcome. So they should. Even if he got off, whe whole matter and past behavioural issues shows this guys got some major caracter flaws and I as a fan of the Sharks would prefer he be gone. Make an example of him, no pussy footing around by the Sharks or the NRL.

It is about time a firm stand is taken to show all players these behaviours will not be tolerated. Do it for the best interest of the game.