Greg Bird charged with violent attack

[stupidhumour]

I agree. There has been some interesting discussion brought undone by the arrival of nuffies from other clubs.

......who in-turn, dribble out the same sh*te - but they keep getting bites!

Why don't we just ignore them and get on with it....

.....or move it to the Shark Net........

 

[spider]

Of course Birds outcome should not be weighted off the media, but it is where the court of public opinion is getting their information and imo most have made up their minds, and are highly unlikely to change them, based on either totally wrong information (fractured eye socket) or potentially wrong information. That is all I am argueing.

rest assured PJ, it will not be the court of public opinion that presides his case should it go to court

I don't believe that she inflicted those injuries either, but I don't know for a fact she didn't, do you?

no - and i have not claimed that i do know

 

[sharks8601]

If he is acquitted i can’t see us getting out of this cheaply if we chose to sack him
He will be a shark next year

 

[spider]

This thread is far too long and hard to follow.

you could stop entering it koth?

 

[cityshark]

All this aside Ok . The Police come out and say he has no case to answer , ( for what ever reason) we have to reinstate him to the play roster. And he should be able to play this season in the finals and Grand Final when we play Storm. I dont have a problem if the police dont take it to court.

 

[PJ]

rest assured PJ, it will not be the court of public opinion that presides his case should it go to court

I understand that completely, nevertheless it is where it is being played out at the moment and people are making up their minds based on what has been shown to be just plain wrong information.

 

[spider]

I understand that completely, nevertheless it is where it is being played out at the moment and people are making up their minds based on what has been shown to be just plain wrong information.

for mine, its pretty much a common sense approach

do i believe bird called watson to adhere to the blame - yes
therefore, do i think bird lied to police - yes
do i believe milligan has severe facial injuries - yes
do i think milligan was solely responsible for inflicting these severe injuries on herself - no
if milligan is totally at fault for the injuries, why not state so at the beginning
could milligans love for bird cloud her judgement to pursue bird of the alleged act - yes
is there another alleged incident on bird for the same or similar offence - yes

i cant say if he is guilty - as i dont know the facts

but i can pressume he is guilty of my own opinion - to which i have done

 

[blacktip-reefy]

for mine, its pretty much a common sense approach

do i believe bird called watson to adhere to the blame - yes
therefore, do i think bird lied to police - yes
do i believe milligan has severe facial injuries - yes
do i think milligan was solely responsible for inflicting these severe injuries on herself - no
if milligan is totally at fault for the injuries, why not state so at the beginning
could milligans love for bird cloud her judgement to pursue bird of the alleged act - yes
is there another alleged incident on bird for the same or similar offence - yes

i cant say if he is guilty - as i dont know the facts

but i can pressume he is guilty of my own opinion - to which i have done

The thing is, if some if not all of what you are lead to believe is true & it is actually false, what would you believe? How many others have made up their minds on that same info?
For instance, your first 2 points are completely wrong. That has already come out.
then point 4 is wrong. it was an accident with 2 people involved. As stated to police & watson.
then point 5 could milligans father see past the "battered wife syndrome" & ensure she would press charges? Yes
then point 6. the incident is not the same, not even similar.

 

[millersnose]

so i have spiders speculation

or:


step 1
she tripped and fell on some broken glass

or some mysterious 3rd person as claimed by reefy was there and did the dastardly deed

step 2
the call to the mate was so bird wouldnt be associated with the incident via the press

step 3
the lies to the police was due to panic

step 4
the lies to the club due to panic

step 5
she hasnt made a statement to police because...ummm...ummm

help me out on this one reefy


step 6 he will be exonerated due to the mysterious 3rd person popping up at trial and saying...'yup it was me

or

police will think his 'mate did it' comments were just down to panic and given katie wont testify bird will be free to return to footy


step 7

optional of course and only for the 'birdy will be back' guys

the wider community and sponsors will go 'oh it was all a big mistake' and welcome him back with open arms

 

[spider]

How many others have made up their minds on that same info?

well, i have asked one question openly [bird defence side of the fence] and to your credit, you are the only one who has answered

For instance, your first 2 points are completely wrong. That has already come out.

are you refuting he called watson?

watson had to issue an official statement to absolve himself from the mess that bird dropped him in

then point 4 is wrong. it was an accident with 2 people involved. As stated to police & watson.

your saying the same thing as i am here????

then point 6. the incident is not the same, not even similar.

do you have the facts of both alleged incidents?

 

[Dave Q]

On the tote:

Hearing, Found innocent: $56.23

Hearing, Found Guilty: $1.50

Pleads Guilty next court appearance: $ 12.29

Pleads guilty to lessor charge formally: $6.90

Plea-bargain: $1.25

Police withdraw charges: $89.90

Flees to country with no extradition treaty: $48.78

Plays for sharks finals: $3.10

Never plays for sharks again: $1.78

 

[blacktip-reefy]

so i have spiders speculation

or:


step 1
she tripped and fell on some broken glass

or some mysterious 3rd person as claimed by reefy was there and did the dastardly deed

I have not stated that at all, not do I believe that.

step 2
the call to the mate was so bird wouldnt be associated with the incident via the press

bingo

step 3
the lies to the police was due to panic

fabrication or mis-reported

step 4
the lies to the club due to panic

possibly, but not Zappia.

step 5
she hasnt made a statement to police because...ummm...ummm

help me out on this one reefy

because she is under legal advice not to. Probably because there is no confidentialilty with the police. Therefore the incident has to be managed.

step 6 he will be exonerated due to the mysterious 3rd person popping up at trial and saying...'yup it was me

I have no idea what your on about with this 3rd person thing.

or

police will think his 'mate did it' comments were just down to panic and given katie wont testify bird will be free to return to footy

or it will be deemed to have been an accident & poor decisions were made in regards to the handling of the media.

step 7

optional of course and only for the 'birdy will be back' guys

the wider community and sponsors will go 'oh it was all a big mistake' and welcome him back with open arms

The wider community have been force fed the lies & fabrications from day 1. If you go online & search it will lead to the News ltd site specific on this saga. if you believe 1/2 of those fabrications, he would be in jail tomorrow. The wider community does not have the luxury or the insight afforded to others. it will come as no shock to me when the story is told, but it will come as a complete shock to those who have hung him already.

& he won't be back. & the Sharks will be up for 3-4 years of big contract money , damages, loss of earnings, damage to reputation etc etc.
I am wondering if we will get the double whammy & that money will count towards salary cap until it is settled out of court.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

are you refuting he called watson?

No

watson had to issue an official statement to absolve himself from the mess that bird dropped him in

How did Bird drop him in it? Did Bird tell the police that watson attacked milligan? Did Bird tell hospital staff that watson attacked milligan? Did bird tell anybody that watson attacked miligan? The answer is a definitive NO!

Did Milligan say anything to police or hospital staff? YES

Did anybody other than the police accuse anybody of an attack? NO


Did bird ring watson? YES
Did he say to Watson "we accused you of attacking Katie" NO

 

[shintaro]

can you sustantiate the LG comment please shintaro?

Not really. It was in the Telegraph

 

[spider]

How did Bird drop him in it?

by telling police watson was responsible for the victims accident

why else would he have had to issue a statement - certainly not for the bogey he got on the 9th that morning

Did Bird tell the police that watson attacked milligan? Did Bird tell hospital staff that watson attacked milligan? Did bird tell anybody that watson attacked miligan? The answer is a definitive NO!

as i asked you before - do you have the facts of the case?

if you do, then i will accept your 'definitive NO' answer

Did Milligan say anything to police or hospital staff? YES

yes - "she said it was watson", whcih was a big fat porky pie

Did he say to Watson "we accused you of attacking Katie" NO

i agrre he didnt say that

but do you agree he inferred he wanted watson to take blame for the alleged accident?

"katie has had an accident, there is blood everywhere, we told them it was you - how do you feel about that"

WHY lie if it was an accident?

and i dont buy that 'to avoid the media' baloney

some might, and santa clause is not far from coming

 

[spider]

Not really. It was in the Telegraph

its ok - it was removed hours ago

 

[Quigs]

i have pressumed guilt imo

and i make no effort to cover that up

** phones friend **

FARKIN' PHONE.

Whose ringing me at this farkin' hour of the day. Better not be one of those outsourced Indian Pricks.

Cheers
Declared Idiot #88
Quigs

 

[blacktip-reefy]

as i asked you before - do you have the facts of the case?

I believe I have some good sources

if you do, then i will accept your 'definitive NO' answer

I don't expect you to. I'm showing a bit of faith in what ive heard & not fence sitting.

yes - "she said it was watson", whcih was a big fat porky pie

I have not even heard what she said about Watson, but I bet she didnt say he attacked her.

i agrre he didnt say that

but do you agree he inferred he wanted watson to take blame for the alleged accident?

"katie has had an accident, there is blood everywhere, we told them it was you - how do you feel about that"

WHY lie if it was an accident?

and i dont buy that 'to avoid the media' baloney

some might, and santa clause is not far from coming

well I do. Especially after watching this case unfold. A lot of very valuable lessons learnt here by all parties.
For instance, was it wise for the Sharks to make a statement only hours after the event?
I thought 48 hours would have been a minimum silence period.?

 

[spider]

well I do.

hey, im not bagging you for your opinion, quite the opposite

neither of us have the facts, but its fun discussion none the less

For instance, was it wise for the Sharks to make a statement only hours after the event?
I thought 48 hours would have been a minimum silence period.?

serious question - who made a statement on behalf of the club only hours after the event?

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Zapps.