How do you know she was acting like an idiot according to the neighbours? They weren't in court to say that or be cross examined on it. The only place I am betting you heard this is in the press correct? The same press that have been telling you for 10 days that she had a fractured eye socket? Could these reports also be untrue.
For the record I said in this thread a couple of days ago she didn't have a fractured eye socket. I don't know Bird, anyone associated with Bird or with his club, management, girlfriend etc. I managed to find out by asking some friends who work at the hospital. They knew this Monday after it happened, do you think the press may have been able to find out with just a little effort or maybe that wouldn't help sell as many papers. Do you think maybe it is co-incidence it only comes out when there is a clear picture of her eye that anyone with some medical knowledge or experience with similar injuries would see that there is no way this person had recently suffered a fractured eye socket?
Re the mate's involvement do you know for a fact he lied to police, or was the mate being involved told to the hospital staff? If he has lied to police when he is being investigated then that is an offence in itself isn't it? And if so we don't need to worry about Bird playing NRL anymore anyway as the POlice would be able to prove this easily and give the NRL and Sharks the ammunition to punt hime regardless.
But take your blinkers off regarding the mate for a minute and pretend that you are on the jury for this case, the one where you have to believe that there is no reasonable doubt that it he deliberately attacked her. Here we have a lawyer telling you how a high profile football player and his girlfriend had an arguement, he was angry and went to throw a drink at her and it slipped from his hand (or she moved forward at the same time) and the glass accidently connected with her. She backs this story up. She says why did you do this to me, he says I didn't meaning I didn't do it on purpose and this is what is overheard by a neighbour. They realise he has a high profile and think that the media will go rabid over a story like this so they head off to hospital, thinking that the injuries are minor but need looking at, so decide to say that a mate caused the accident, fully expecting that it will be thought of that way and that nothing much will come of it. Media do get a hold of it and go rabid as they had thought they would if the media thought Bird was involved. Lawyer can show previous examples such as the speculation over the Dogs at Coffs and Todd Carney to highlight this.
Are you saying that you definately say something like this couldn't have happened? Because essentially that is what a jury would have to do.
I don't necessarily believe that is what happened, and I hope if he is guilty he is found so, but I think the media has helped his cause.
