Greg Bird charged with violent attack

[blacktip-reefy]

who really gives a f**k what the truth is? Really, who does give a f**k?
If she is the victim ofa deliberate glassing & shed prefer to get the cash than have him convicted , then let it f**king be & give us our player back.
I couldnt give a f**k if he told a million lies & is such a coward hes scared of the dark.
He was winning us games & was very, very, important to us.
Despite the fact that still all stands a very real chance of getting turfed out now real judges with a better than solicitor grip on the law will be looking at it.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

The irony is, that if Bird told the "truth" at the beginning we wouldn't be hear talking about this now.
.

That he rammed a glass into his girlfriends face as per the cops story & the magistrates finding? I would say if he said anything remotely like that he would be already behind bars.

 

[myanonymoususername]

So this is what bird said



This is what milligan said






I bet they weren't either they were arguing when they got home.

I could presume other scenarios out of the two initial hospital statements.

Couple argue, woman charges man, woman gets pushed away , woman hits coffee table.

Woman not wanting to appear to be a jealous woman in a rage decides to dob in flatmate to avoid embarrasment.

Stupid boyfriend goes along with it to save her embarrasment.

Goes pair shaped for stupid boyfriend, crazed woman won't make statement accusing bird because crazed woman lied from the start and got stupid boyfriend to go along with it.

Surely, you are so desperate to believe Bird is innocent.

Get over it, and here's a couple of facts that I'm confident about:

1. Bird will never play for the Sharks again
2. Almost certainly he won't play in the NRL again

 

[blacktip-reefy]

You will be wrong on at least 1 account.

 

[nathanbrown'sghost]

I would say if he said anything remotely like that he would be already behind bars.

Soon enough, blacktip, soon enough.

 

[myanonymoususername]

Some kind of criminal negligence, it may have changed the charge...maybe the penalty... I am not sure. Someone else here should know.

A guilty plea asap, no circus etc, and a full explanation of the events...

As for sentancing, max 2 years at local court, here are the mitigating factors, his lawyers are busy studying:

Crimes Sentancing Proceedure Act sec 21A

3) Mitigating factors The mitigating factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence for an offence are as follows:

(a) the injury, emotional harm, loss or damage caused by the offence was not substantial,
​

(b) the offence was not part of a planned or organised criminal activity,
​

(c) the offender was provoked by the victim,
​

(d) the offender was acting under duress,
​

(e) the offender does not have any record (or any significant record) of previous convictions,
​

(f) the offender was a person of good character,
​

(g) the offender is unlikely to re-offend,
​

(h) the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation, whether by reason of the offender’s age or otherwise,
​

(i) the remorse shown by the offender for the offence, but only if:

(i) the offender has provided evidence that he or she has accepted responsibility for his or her actions, and
​

(ii) the offender has acknowledged any injury, loss or damage caused by his or her actions or made reparation for such injury, loss or damage (or both),
​

(j) the offender was not fully aware of the consequences of his or her actions because of the offender’s age or any disability,
​

(k) a plea of guilty by the offender (as provided by section 22),
​

(l) the degree of pre-trial disclosure by the defence (as provided by section 22A),
​

(m) assistance by the offender to law enforcement authorities (as provided by section 23).

So apart from addressing and highlighting the favourable points above, inter alia:-

They should be emphasising his good deeds as an individual and differentiate those from those he has done because he had to as part of his job.

He will need a number of references that address specifics, not like a job reference etc.

And he will need to tell the court about the event etc. he cant blame his lawyers at all.

A good QC might charge $5000 for the effort and if he wears a really bad penalty, he can appeal on severity, although he runs the risk that the higher court might actually increase the penalty. They have to provide a warning that they are thinking of increasing it, so you can pull out if you want to.
Do you roll the dice?

As for his legal team, we dont know what he told them for them for them to consider running the "not guilty" plea in the first instance. They cant make up his mind, they would have told him the down side and the risks.

What we do know is that he has lost a discount worth between 10 and 25% of his sentance.

Not the best outcome, but they arent the magistrate, theres only so much they could have promised him.



​

The ones I bolded he might as well not waste the court's time trying to argue in mitigation.

 

[myanonymoususername]

I should also add that I was really surprised to see him convicted on the assault charge. Based on what had been reported, the lack of co-operation from Bird and Milligan, etc, I thought the prosecution would struggle to prove the charges.

The evidence from the witnesses at the hospital must have been very compelling to the Magistrate.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Soon enough, blacktip, soon enough.

something tells me you arent the bloke that would know too much about this.
I find people like yourself that are making a sport of seeing him go to jail just the most disgraceful scum in the country.
The country is awash with real crime, armed robberies, atm theft, rampant drug trafficking , violent rapes, paedophiles in schools, toddler murders & increasing general murders.
These criminals are getting off the hook everyday and light sentences are rife , yet you take it upon yourself to make a sport & gloat over the fact that this guy could go to jail.
Lowlife to wish that upon somebody because of which club they play for.

 

[Genius Freak]

He was tried by the Telegraph a long time before it went to court. Chances then of a fair and impartial ruling?

Zero.

 

[nathanbrown'sghost]

something tells me you arent the bloke that would know too much about this.
I find people like yourself that are making a sport of seeing him go to jail just the most disgraceful scum in the country.
The country is awash with real crime, armed robberies, atm theft, rampant drug trafficking , violent rapes, paedophiles in schools, toddler murders & increasing general murders.
These criminals are getting off the hook everyday and light sentences are rife , yet you take it upon yourself to make a sport & gloat over the fact that this guy could go to jail.
Lowlife to wish that upon somebody because of which club they play for.

You are a joke. This has nothing to do with Football or any team. He glassed his girlfriend and then tried to cover it up. You don't know anything about this yourself. You are sure that he has not done anything wrong but have nothing to back up your stupid statements. You argue with anyone in this thread who disagrees with you.

I don't wish that Greg Bird goes to jail but he will. I have not gloated about it, it's not like I said "yay! so good to see a fat sharkie merkin in the slammer. All sharkie merkins should be there!" Why? Because I am not as stupid as you.

 

[nathanbrown'sghost]

It is exactly what you did.

No again you are wrong. I believe Greg Bird glassed her and he deserves jail time. Not because he is a sharks player but because he is a coward who glasses women. We disagree. You think he is innocent and the legal system has failed him. I don't.

As for saying rapists get let off etc etc. What a weak excuse! We should let everyone off charges because some of the most serious ones end without fair conviction? Arse!

 

[blacktip-reefy]

No again you are wrong. I believe Greg Bird glassed her and he deserves jail time.

I'll ask again, does the conviction today mean to you, that he rammed a glass into her eye? If the magistrate threw the charges out today, what would that have meant to you?

 

[nathanbrown'sghost]

I'll ask again, does the conviction today mean to you, that he rammed a glass into her eye? If the magistrate threw the charges out today, what would that have meant to you?

Yes, but the conviction today alone is not what makes me believe he did it. The verdict itself does not say that Bird rammed glass into her eye, just that he assaulted her occasioning bodily harm which could suggest any one of numerous scenarios.

If the magistrate threw the case out, to me it would have meant he did not feel the evidence supported the charges. That would not change my opinion of his guilt really but obviously would change whether Bird faces jail time. I am sorry if you think my assuming guilt before the verdict was handed down is tough on Bird but that's the real world. You assume innocence, so fair is fair.

 

[Surely]

A circumstancial case where the alleged victim didn't press charges, no eyewitness and convicted on assumption by the judge.

Is it common for these types of trials to be conducted without juries ?

 

[kurtz]

I'll ask again, does the conviction today mean to you, that he rammed a glass into her eye?

He was found guilty of reckless wounding (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25399300-5001021,00.html). The only injury reported were severe cuts to her eye, which required surgery to remove glass fragments (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24235035-5001021,00.html). What's your alternative hypothesis consistent with the verdict and facts Reefy?

 

[blacktip-reefy]

. You assume innocence, so fair is fair.

No I don't assume any such thing. But there is a big difference to what I think & deliberately ramming a glass in somebodies face. A world of difference.

I would assume with so many witnesses & circumstantial evidence is why you believe in his guilt of ramming the glass into her eye.

I wonder if you think this guy was guilty?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200205/s565495.htm

FTR, he had a very good legal team.

 

[dubopov]

Can someone tell me why people here are defending a cowardly thug ??

Putting the biff in or being a thug on the field is a footy thing .. bashing/glassing anyone is thuggery .. it is about a person, not a footy player from any team.

Please support your team for all your worth, but don't support thugs.

 

[Dave Q]

The ones I bolded he might as well not waste the court's time trying to argue in mitigation.

Yeah, I thought there were a few more you could have thrown out too.

If I was him, Id be publishing the truth and be making some massive and loud apologies to the girl, the club, the NRL and the public.

Its 99.99% all too late, but he has to get on his knees with something more than his cheeky grin.

They will bring in a shrink to say that he was depressed at the time etc and is on medications and that a gaol term will lead to his suicide within an hour of being incarcerated. Of course, that is what some prison officers can do to you.

His career in the NRL, I suggest thats its over.

He would be in a bad way upstairs tonight, one lonely "thug".

 

[Dave Q]

Can someone tell me why people here are defending a cowardly thug ??

Putting the biff in or being a thug on the field is a footy thing .. bashing/glassing anyone is thuggery .. it is about a person, not a footy player from any team.

Please support your team for all your worth, but don't support thugs.[/quote]

Some of the guys on this thread would have made Adolf Hitler captain of the sharks if a) the side existed in WW2 and b) Adolf had a good kicking game.

And some of them have always beleived that the girl sustained the injury by trying to headbutt the wineglass for her own evil, twisted, dysfunctional and possibly sexual pleasure.

 

[++ Gregos v.4]

No I don't assume any such thing. But there is a big difference to what I think & deliberately ramming a glass in somebodies face. A world of difference.

I would assume with so many witnesses & circumstantial evidence is why you believe in his guilt of ramming the glass into her eye.

I wonder if you think this guy was guilty?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200205/s565495.htm

FTR, he had a very good legal team.

You are right that there is a world of difference. Malicious Wounding with intent carries twenty five years maximum and would have been heard before a jury and judge.

Reckless Wounding carries a maximum of 7 years and can be heard at the local Court.

So I'd say the prosecution were happy to concede that they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to wound the mutt.

Just so you know... the legal definition of recklessness roughly equates to having the foresight that the particular kind of harm in fact done (that is, some physical harm — but not necessarily the degree of harm in fact so done) might be inflicted (that is, may possibly be inflicted) yet you do the act anyway.

So if I want to scare redback by throwing a glass at the wall next to him, even though I never intended to hurt him, but that glass hits him in his wok eye and wounds him, then I can be guilty of reckless wounding. The argument being, I could have foreseen the possibility that my actions could possibly cause him injury but went ahead anyway.

Of course no jury in this country would convict me of injuring him.