It was rape, say police

[TinghaInMotion]

It was rape, say police
SMH April 28, 2004 - 10:21AM

Police investigating rape allegations against six Bulldogs players today said there was evidence a rape had occurred.

Asked whether there was any evidence of rape physically, Strike Force head Jason Breton replied: "Yes."

But he said there was insufficient evidence to pursue charges against any players.

A 20-year-old woman accused up to six players of gang raping her beside the pool of the Pacific Bay Resort in Coffs Harbour after a pre-season match on February 22 this year.

Police announced yesterday they would not lay charges against anyone involved with the club.

Detective Breton said proving rape cases can be difficult because the evidence can be the same as consensual sex.

"It's always hard to talk about evidence of rape because rape's an offence, sexual intercourse isn't but the evidence can be the same," he said.

I dont understand why you changed the headline from "There was evidence of rape, police say" to "It was rape, police say". If it was rape then the cops would have charged someone. The original heading is imflamatory as it is because the article goes on to say "Detective Breton said proving rape cases can be difficult because the evidence can be the same as consensual sex." So this so called evidence of rape could be evidence of consenual sex. I hope it wasnt some feeble attempt to stir dogs fans or attract attention to your topic.

Here is the link:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/28/1083103516563.html

I wish some of you people would stop carrying on like the players are still guilty. We can argue about what "lack of evidence" really means. Did they really rape her and they couldnt prove it or did she make up the whole thing? Well since we are in the mood to quote bits from news paper articles i thought these quotes are very revealing in relation to the womans credibility.

from the smh article:
"The thing is there were substantial holes in some witness accounts, there were some alibis which when discovered were checked out and became evidence against the original version [and] there were some timelines that didn't match up," he said"

from a news.com.au article:
"This moment came for strike force McGuigon when some of what the 20-year-old woman had told them in initial interviews appeared to be at odds with evidence and what other witnesses were saying.

Precisely, it was when investigators learned that her girlfriend's wallet or handbag had been found and handed in at the Plantation Hotel in Coffs Harbour. "

"She had told police, in her initial interviews, that she was gang raped - orally, vaginally and anally - by up to six players at the swimming pool area that morning.

But she was unable, when shown the photos, to identify six players.

Police had also hoped DNA evidence may help to corroborate the young woman's version of events and narrow down just who did what.

It was a long shot anyway, because if all the players got to court and claimed consent it meant little. On the other hand it could help trap anyone who was lying.

But at the end of the day the DNA was of no value. It didn't link the woman and players.

Suddenly the cracks were becoming gaping chasms. In sexual assault cases identity is all important. Without a positive identification from the woman and in the absence of other good corroborative evidence the case was beginning to unravel. "

Good article. heres the link
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9411976%5E2,00.html

This goes to the heart of this issue. The credibility of the alleged victim. To my way of thinking her credibilty has been shot to pieces.

 

[mickdo]

I dont understand why you changed the headline from "There was evidence of rape, police say" to "It was rape, police say".

I didn't change the headline, the SMH did. When I posted the article the heading was "It was rape, say police".

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Evidence of rape is the same as evidence of intercourse.

Not quite. Evidence of rape is the same as evidence of intercourse of a certain type. Bruises and abrasions aren't generally evidence of normal consensual sex, however they can be sustained during certain sexual practices. So it's not just evidence that tsomeone had sex with her, but that it got pretty rough. The point is it still may have been consensual, and the dpp has judged that this possibility cannot be ruled out. Hence the decision not to prosecute.

 

[TinghaInMotion]

I dont understand why you changed the headline from "There was evidence of rape, police say" to "It was rape, police say".

I didn't change the headline, the SMH did. When I posted the article the heading was "It was rape, say police".

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright

 

[ouwet]

It was rape, say police
SMH April 28, 2004 - 10:21AM

Police investigating rape allegations against six Bulldogs players today said there was evidence a rape had occurred.

Asked whether there was any evidence of rape physically, Strike Force head Jason Breton replied: "Yes."

But he said there was insufficient evidence to pursue charges against any players.

A 20-year-old woman accused up to six players of gang raping her beside the pool of the Pacific Bay Resort in Coffs Harbour after a pre-season match on February 22 this year.

Police announced yesterday they would not lay charges against anyone involved with the club.

Detective Breton said proving rape cases can be difficult because the evidence can be the same as consensual sex.

"It's always hard to talk about evidence of rape because rape's an offence, sexual intercourse isn't but the evidence can be the same," he said.

I dont understand why you changed the headline from "There was evidence of rape, police say" to "It was rape, police say". If it was rape then the cops would have charged someone. The original heading is imflamatory as it is because the article goes on to say "Detective Breton said proving rape cases can be difficult because the evidence can be the same as consensual sex." So this so called evidence of rape could be evidence of consenual sex. I hope it wasnt some feeble attempt to stir dogs fans or attract attention to your topic.

Here is the link:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/28/1083103516563.html

I wish some of you people would stop carrying on like the players are still guilty. We can argue about what "lack of evidence" really means. Did they really rape her and they couldnt prove it or did she make up the whole thing? Well since we are in the mood to quote bits from news paper articles i thought these quotes are very revealing in relation to the womans credibility.

from the smh article:
"The thing is there were substantial holes in some witness accounts, there were some alibis which when discovered were checked out and became evidence against the original version [and] there were some timelines that didn't match up," he said"

from a news.com.au article:
"This moment came for strike force McGuigon when some of what the 20-year-old woman had told them in initial interviews appeared to be at odds with evidence and what other witnesses were saying.

Precisely, it was when investigators learned that her girlfriend's wallet or handbag had been found and handed in at the Plantation Hotel in Coffs Harbour. "

"She had told police, in her initial interviews, that she was gang raped - orally, vaginally and anally - by up to six players at the swimming pool area that morning.

But she was unable, when shown the photos, to identify six players.

Police had also hoped DNA evidence may help to corroborate the young woman's version of events and narrow down just who did what.

It was a long shot anyway, because if all the players got to court and claimed consent it meant little. On the other hand it could help trap anyone who was lying.

But at the end of the day the DNA was of no value. It didn't link the woman and players.

Suddenly the cracks were becoming gaping chasms. In sexual assault cases identity is all important. Without a positive identification from the woman and in the absence of other good corroborative evidence the case was beginning to unravel. "

Good article. heres the link
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9411976%5E2,00.html

This goes to the heart of this issue. The credibility of the alleged victim. To my way of thinking her credibilty has been shot to pieces.

Brilliant Post!!!

 

[The General]

The police officer who made this statement is an absolute moron and should lose his job immediately. He says that the evidence for rape and the evidence for consensual sex can be the same, but he goes on to insinuate a rape had occured. Why didn't he come out and say consensual sex had occured, since the evidence for that and rape is the same and the players have already admitted to consensual sex with the woman.

 

[ouwet]

I dont understand why you changed the headline from "There was evidence of rape, police say" to "It was rape, police say".

I didn't change the headline, the SMH did. When I posted the article the heading was "It was rape, say police".

:lol: :lol:

 

[TinghaInMotion]

Thanks LF im no dogs fan but someone had to state the facts.

 

[mickdo]

I dont understand why you changed the headline from "There was evidence of rape, police say" to "It was rape, police say".

I didn't change the headline, the SMH did. When I posted the article the heading was "It was rape, say police".

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright

Great response pal, you're obviously one of those really smart ones. If you had half a brain you would realise that the mods on this forum would have torched my thread if I had delibertaely modified the article I was posting. Funny how this thread is now 4 pages huh? Moron.

 

[Rise Against]

It was rape, say police
SMH April 28, 2004 - 10:21AM

Police investigating rape allegations against six Bulldogs players today said there was evidence a rape had occurred.

Asked whether there was any evidence of rape physically, Strike Force head Jason Breton replied: "Yes."

But he said there was insufficient evidence to pursue charges against any players.

A 20-year-old woman accused up to six players of gang raping her beside the pool of the Pacific Bay Resort in Coffs Harbour after a pre-season match on February 22 this year.

Police announced yesterday they would not lay charges against anyone involved with the club.

Detective Breton said proving rape cases can be difficult because the evidence can be the same as consensual sex.

"It's always hard to talk about evidence of rape because rape's an offence, sexual intercourse isn't but the evidence can be the same," he said.

How about posting the whole story instead of the rape part?

Asked whether there was any physical evidence of rape of a 20-year-old Coffs Harbour woman, Strike Force McGuigon head Jason Breton replied "Yes", before he appeared to retract the comment.

Inspector Breton said proving rape cases could be difficult because the evidence could be the same as consensual sex.

"There was evidence consistent with her version of events," Insp Breton said.

"It's always hard to talk about evidence of rape because rape's an offence, sexual intercourse isn't but the evidence can be the same."

"We believe something happened at Coffs Harbour. That's why worked for 10 weeks on this.

Although no Bulldogs player will be charged with raping the woman after a trial match at the New South Wales north coast town in February, the beleaguered club still faces a possible sanction from the National Rugby League for bringing the game into disrepute.

NSW police, acting on advice from the state's Director of Public Prosecutions, announced yesterday that they had closed their two-month investigation after being informed they had not produced enough evidence to charge any of the six accused players.

Lawyers for the players revealed last night that they were considering suing the NSW Government for what they alleged was a deficient police investigation.

Forward Willie Mason said at training yesterday that the team had been "smashed for months". "Once the truth comes out, we expect a bit of an apology from some of the media over this and maybe a few front pages saying 'Players - we did not mean it'."

And 18-year-old rising Kiwi star Sonny-Bill Williams said: "We knew we had done nothing wrong. But when you read the paper and they make you out to be criminals, it gets on top of you."

New Bulldogs chief executive Malcolm Noad said it was unlikely that anyone would ever know what happened on the night of February 22 near the main pool area of the Pacific Bay resort.

"I feel relieved and I've only been here for two weeks. So I can't imagine what the staff and players feel like after going through what they've gone through in the last two months," Mr Noad said.

"It should be seen as a true vindication. The police have mounted an incredibly extensive investigation over the last two months. They've interviewed a substantial amount of people and I don't think there should be any doubt that our players have been vindicated."

It is understood the lawyers demanded yesterday that police hand over the results of DNA testing of players, with police agreeing to supply a written answer.

"The DPP informed Coffs Harbour police at 3.20pm that there was insufficient evidence to warrant any charges against any Bulldog player," Insp Jason Breton said yesterday.

"Despite this, this should not be seen as a deterrent for any victims of sexual assault to not come forward to police."

Police are understood to be disappointed in the quality of DNA evidence they were able to produce.

There were also several competing claims produced in the witness statements provided by hotel guests.

Inspector Breton said he had broken the news to the woman at the centre of the allegations, who had met with at least one of the players for consensual sex on February 22.

By last night, he also had spoken to Bulldogs management, who then immediately set about attempting to shake the stigma of the most damaging allegations ever levelled against rugby league.

Sponsors, some of whom walked away from the club, reacted cautiously to the news, with several pledging to wait for the results of an internal Bulldogs inquiry before declaring their positions.

The scandal cost the club an estimated $1.3 million in sponsorship deals, and cost the jobs of chief executive Steve Mortimer, former chief Peter Mortimer and football manager Garry Hughes.

Of those who withdrew sponsorship, Perfection Fresh Australia director John Simonetta said he would be disappointed to have turned away from the Bulldogs if the players were found to have done nothing wrong.

Also in the minds of sponsors and supporters alike is a fresh investigation by the NRL into the conduct of the Bulldogs club and players during their pre-season trip to Coffs Harbour.

"There is a range of conduct outside the central allegations that we said we would look at when the central allegation became clearer," NRL chief executive David Gallop said.

"We've got a board meeting tomorrow and we will certainly be discussing that conduct and potential penalties against the club," Mr Gallop said.

Sanctions being considered, should the club be found to have brought the game into disrepute, include fines levied at players and the club.

Mr Gallop said he did not expect the NRL investigation would lead to premiership points being deducted from the club.

The six accused players and the remainder of the first-grade squad will meet this morning to determine their next course of action, with many flagging the option of legal action against a range of media outlets.

With The Australian and AAP

The Australian

 

[SpaceMonkey]

The police officer who made this statement is an absolute moron and should lose his job immediately. He says that the evidence for rape and the evidence for consensual sex can be the same, but he goes on to insinuate a rape had occured. Why didn't he come out and say consensual sex had occured, since the evidence for that and rape is the same and the players have already admitted to consensual sex with the woman.

Read what I posted above. It was consistent with a certain type of consensual sex.

 

[TinghaInMotion]

I dont understand why you changed the headline from "There was evidence of rape, police say" to "It was rape, police say".

I didn't change the headline, the SMH did. When I posted the article the heading was "It was rape, say police".

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright

Great response pal, you're obviously one of those really smart ones. If you had half a brain you would realise that the mods on this forum would have torched my thread if I had delibertaely modified the article I was posting. Funny how this thread is now 4 pages huh? Moron.

Dont get your knickers in a knot pal. Im not the fool who cant quote an article properly.

 

[mickdo]

No, you're the fool who has less than half a brain :lol:

 

[TinghaInMotion]

No prizes for second best champ ;-)

 

[Rise Against]

ur the fool who cant read properly. Bulldogs players havent been charged. GET THE f**k OVER IT. THEY R CLEARED. HOW ABT U STOP BRINGING THE GAME IN DISREPUTE CAUSE U CANT GET OVER THE FACT THAT THEY ARE FREE TO PLAY THIS YEAR

 

[mickdo]

I guess you will go home empty handed then...

 

[TinghaInMotion]

stop making come backs off the back of my come backs champ.

 

[wittyfan]

ur the fool who cant read properly. Bulldogs players havent been charged. GET THE f**k OVER IT. THEY R CLEARED. HOW ABT U STOP BRINGING THE GAME IN DISREPUTE CAUSE U CANT GET OVER THE FACT THAT THEY ARE FREE TO PLAY THIS YEAR

This isn't all over for the Bulldogs, not by a long chalk.

 

[mickdo]

stop making come backs off the back of my come backs champ.

Ooh... I'm so scared now... :shock: ...'champ'

 

[Pensacola Q.C]

It is the correct burden of proof but the offence isn't rape, that is a criminal matter.

If you read that I was disputing civil proceedings taking place you are proving again that you cannot comprehend information.

The woman from 2003 is taking civil action so it can obviously happen.

Dunce.

You are correct. A civil suit would more likely proceed under a trespass action or possibly battery as well.

As for the rest...I'm wondering how long the SMH bothered police before they could get one to say "there was evidence that a rape took place". This is classic media manipulation and if you can't see it then I suggest you look harder and read some academic texts on the subject.

The police already stated that there was insufficient evidence. The SMH clearly did not take well to this as they were at the forefront of the whole 'conviction before investigation' movement. Get this possible senario:

SMH reporter: So there's insufficient evidence...does that mean that nothing happened?

Police Officer: It means that there's insufficient evidence to lay charges.

Reporter: But something could have happened, right?

Officer: There was insufficient evidence.

Reporter: But the girl was assaulted, right?

Officer: That was the allegation.

Reporter: But it happened, right?

Officer: The evidence was inconclusive as far as players raping her was concerned.

Reporter: But there was some physical evidence suggesting a rape may have occured, right?

Officer: The evidence was insufficient for us to lay charges.

Reporter: But there must have been some physical evidence or...why have you been investigating for so long?

Officer: There was evidence of intercourse taking place.

Reporter: Could this eveidence be linked to sexual assault and not just consentual sex?

Officer: Possibly...but

Blah, blah, blah.

It doesn't matter what the officer said after that, the SMH hack got his quote, put it out in a misleading headline and most of you dimwits have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

At the end of the day, by the laws of the land the bulldogs were found to have no case to answer. One can spin that anyway they want to make guilt seem apparent but when one is not found guilty then they are entitled to have their innocence presumed - permanently, if no charges are ever laid.

As for the other so-called issues such as....mmmm....that really terrible incident when....*shudder* .....the players wore thongs to police interviews....these are absolute non-issues. They may have shown better judgement but the fact is that police interviews are quite informal and always have been. The media once again tried to make a deal out of it and the public in their infinate ignorance and desire to become sheep-like, latched onto the media's hoopla. Courtrooms are the places in which suits should be worn...interviews with police are not. Police are interested in cooperation - not Armarnis, and cooperation is what they got. Ask a cop if they care what suspects wear. Judges might, cops don't. End of matter.

The whole Gang-bang comment was a media ruse and someone should be disciplined for that. The urination thing I don't know much about and don't really care as long as it was done on a tree and not somebody's head. If it was good enough for Don McKinnon and Freddy Fittler, well.

Gallop's performance has been very much lacking through this whole ordeal...and even today he seemed to be prejudging the NRL investigation by suggesting that severe wrongs did take place but then noting that this investigation was not about that night but about behaviour in subsequent weeks.

He has had a great opportunity to hose this thing down now and do his job as the game's CEO in taking the game foward, but has badly failed and one must now wonder if he's in the pay of outside forces or merely incompetent. I suspect the latter.

When it's all said and done though, we lead the comp and I'm extremely proud of the players, the administration, the coach and our fans and how we've handled this very adverse situation.

Holla!