Greg Bird charged and released by Sharks

[Miller was a legend]

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.

:lol:

 

[Jatz Crackers]

It would appear that there are more aspiring lawyers here than the ranks of the Liberal Party.

 

[macavity]

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.



This way

wrong.

their evidence cannot be used to establish what happened - ie the truth of what they heard.

it is hearsay.

edit - im not an aspiring lawyer, either.

 

[hellteam]

He surely can be charged for lying to the police about the matter anyway.

But I think there will definately be enough evidence to charge him... this kind of thing happens often with domestic violence, it is different to normal assault because a lot of the time the victim doesn't want to report it to the police, but the charges still go ahead.

Just because the victim doesnt want to press charges doesnt mean the perpetrator gets away with it.

 

[Miller was a legend]

wrong.

their evidence cannot be used to establish what happened - ie the truth of what they heard.

it is hearsay.

edit - im not an aspiring lawyer, either.

Incorrect. It is not hearsay, it is direct evidence of what they saw and what they heard.

Correct, it may not be evidence of what actually happened however it is not trying to do so! It is simply supporting evidence that refutes claims of the defendant that anyone else was present or involved in what ever circumstances took place in the unit.

Hearsay is exactly that, what one person says another person told them they heard or saw. Direct evidence is from the source that heard or saw something.

 

[dannyboy]

wrong.

their evidence cannot be used to establish what happened - ie the truth of what they heard.

it is hearsay.

edit - im not an aspiring lawyer, either.

Quite right - what they heard cannot establish exactly how the injury was sustained as they did not SEE it, but that isn't the issue or the suggestion. The neighbours heard a conversation between the parties so what they heard can be used in proceedings (if needed) because they heard it first hand hence not HEARsay.


It would seem I was typing the same comments at the same time as miller is a legend

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

wrong.

their evidence cannot be used to establish what happened - ie the truth of what they heard.

It is certainly gonna be a strong part of the case. Sure, ideally you`d want to have clear video footage of the incident, but you very rarely have that luxury. Witnesses testifying what they had heard is definitely a strong part of the case. The question is not whether that kind of testimony is strong or not. The question is whether the witnesses are reliable or not. Are they sure they heard everything clearly? Do they have any personal agenda against the accused? That sort of stuff. But that is for the lawyers to try and establish to the court.

 

[Bigfella]

If she declines to make any statement to police they will still proceed.

If she seeks to change a statment (if she has made one, even if it initially named the flatmate) they will still proceed.

They will not withdraw these charges for any reason. It is NSW police policy not to withdraw domestic violence charges based on the attitude of the victim. Victims notoriously withdraw allegations as a result of emotional / psychological issues relating to domestic abuse.

If she recants the police will seek leave, likely to be granted, to cross-examine her as hostile witness.

She will be extremely vulnerable, as it appears she has already made a demonstrably false statement to police accusing the flatmate. She is apparently a law student and the consequences for her of perjuring herself, or having misled police (arguably even conspired to pervert the course of justice) could be long standing.

Eevn without her evidence assisting police there is a strong circumstantial case against Bird. His initial complaint against the flatmate rpesumably places him in the flat with the victim. It will also be demonstrably untrue (in that the flatmate has a watertight alibi).

There will then be the phone conversations / SMS / which are all consistent with Bird's guilt. In addition there is the potential evidence form neighbours.

Plus, although she sought to assist Bird initially, when she sobers up, and recovers, and contemplates all the risk she is taking to protect someone who appears to have glassed her in the eye, I suspect she will come round to the prosecution way of thinking.

If for any reason he is acquitted, I suspect the police will prepare a brief relating to a pervert the course of justice charge to the DPP. They may do so anyway.

He is in all sorts.

 

[myanonymoususername]

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

Not sure why you think that? Maybe she's just been too upset/hurt to talk (I mean 3-4 days in hospital says its a non-trivial injury). Maybe she's waiting for her parents to arrive and to lawyer up?

 

[bartman]

He surely can be charged for lying to the police about the matter anyway.

I'd hope that is the case. Sounds like the police definitely had enough evidence for that, to have come out publoically and pointed the finger in that regard is quite rare.

Regardless of statements forthcoming about the incident itself, hopefully they'll nail the low merkin on that charge, and it might be enough for the Sharks to take action too (with the NRL backing them up), given the story about a third person involved was what he told them.

Bird -> Wigan, like everyone else in trouble this year?

 

[MSIH]

u cn

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.

You can't use me saying that I'm a tosser as evidence that I am a tosser. You can only use it to prove that I said I'm a tosser, not the truth to that statement. I guess the fact I said I'm a tosser proves that I am in actual fact a tosser.

 

[Miller was a legend]

If she declines to make any statement to police they will still proceed.

If she seeks to change a statment (if she has made one, even if it initially named the flatmate) they will still proceed.

They will not withdraw these charges for any reason. It is NSW police policy not to withdraw domestic violence charges based on the attitude of the victim. Victims notoriously withdraw allegations as a result of emotional / psychological issues relating to domestic abuse.

If she recants the police will seek leave, likely to be granted, to cross-examine her as hostile witness.

She will be extremely vulnerable, as it appears she has already made a demonstrably false statement to police accusing the flatmate. She is apparently a law student and the consequences for her of perjuring herself, or having misled police (arguably even conspired to pervert the course of justice) could be long standing.

Eevn without her evidence assisting police there is a strong circumstantial case against Bird. His initial complaint against the flatmate rpesumably places him in the flat with the victim. It will also be demonstrably untrue (in that the flatmate has a watertight alibi).

There will then be the phone conversations / SMS / which are all consistent with Bird's guilt. In addition there is the potential evidence form neighbours.

Plus, although she sought to assist Bird initially, when she sobers up, and recovers, and contemplates all the risk she is taking to protect someone who appears to have glassed her in the eye, I suspect she will come round to the prosecution way of thinking.

If for any reason he is acquitted, I suspect the police will prepare a brief relating to a pervert the course of justice charge to the DPP. They may do so anyway.

He is in all sorts.

Good Post Bigfella and spot on.

I wonder what happens if she does the bolt and heads back to the US.

 

[bartman]

Not sure why you think that? Maybe she's just been too upset/hurt to talk (I mean 3-4 days in hospital says its a non-trivial injury). Maybe she's waiting for her parents to arrive and to lawyer up?

There were reports that manager Gavin Orr was sniffing around the hospital, despite Bird's AVO. And the reported quote from Bird that his manager was "trying to fix this sh*t up".

As I said earlier, personally I wouldn't trust a player manager as far as I could throw one.

 

[Loudstrat]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24246960-23214,00.html

No more Bird. ONya Sharks fans and sponsors for demanding better behaviour from our code's elite. Like Raiders fans over Carney.

Sticky may be in hot water too, for appearing to support Bird returning if he gets off. I understand the forgiveness thing.

However, Bird wasn't punted for the assault. He was punted for bringing disgrace upon our game.

Well done Cronulla. Hope it doesn't affect your finals run (actually I loath Cronulla, but I have to be nice!)

 

[macavity]

Incorrect. It is not hearsay, it is direct evidence of what they saw and what they heard.

read what I wrote.

they can testify as to what they heard her/him say. they cannot testify as to the truth or meaning of what was said.

It is certainly gonna be a strong part of the case.

if that is a "strong part of the case", the case will fail.

The question is not whether that kind of testimony is strong or not. The question is whether the witnesses are reliable or not. Are they sure they heard everything clearly? Do they have any personal agenda against the accused? That sort of stuff. But that is for the lawyers to try and establish to the court.

the question is what weight will the Court give testimony that she said something, or they heard shouting. in my experience they won't give it (by itself) enough weight to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

there may be other collaborating evidence, there may not. it would seem that in lieu of a statement from the victim, the phone discussion with his mate is most incriminating, not what witnesses heard.

at any rate, how about we all wait to see what happens rather than jumping at shadows?

 

[BWNB]

Where did they get he has played his last game from?

 

[Loudstrat]

The club has sacked him.

Sorry, rechecked the article. The club has stood him down indefinitely, but sacking seems inevitable because of sponsors pressure.

OIf mods want to merge the article with the Other bird one, feel free.

 

[Shorty]

Well done Cronulla,I knew they would.

 

[millersnose]

Not sure why you think that? Maybe she's just been too upset/hurt to talk (I mean 3-4 days in hospital says its a non-trivial injury). Maybe she's waiting for her parents to arrive and to lawyer up?

yeah maybe maybe maybe

the fact is she has to date made no incriminating statement against bird

and you would have to be pretty naive to think the police arent trying to get her to make 1

 

[Rockin Ronny]

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

Wrong attitude. That's like the kangaroo court that saw Saddam Hussein executed.

it's important that the correct legal procedures are carried out.