Jack De Belin

[Gareth67]

Remember the burden of proof is with the DPP, Jack is innocent unless proven guilty therefore as things stand he’s an innocent man.

‘ Not guilty ‘ maybe , but deaf , dumb and bluudy stupid without a doubt .

 

[WepnutV]

To reach this verdict they must have decided that the anal penetration was accidental, even if the sex was non consensual.

That cant be right. My thinking is they would of came to the conclusion that anal penetration didn't happen at all

 

[SBD82]

That cant be right. My thinking is they would of came to the conclusion that anal penetration didn't happen at all

“The former State of Origin representative said they continued to have sex, claiming she was “enjoying it” and “moaning” when he “accidentally prodded my penis inside … the wrong hole”.”

“I could tell she grimaced and it wasn’t pleasant and said ‘oh’. I said ‘sorry’,” he told the court.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...e/news-story/3599baaa428fd0de9a886d9953332f2c

 

[redandwhite4evr]

Remember the burden of proof is with the DPP, Jack is innocent unless proven guilty therefore as things stand he’s an innocent man.

True- but it is also important to remember that what applies in criminal matters doesn't necessarily apply in civil matters- so an attempt at litigation against the NRL by De Belin or the club may not get up as the NRL argues that their course of action was warranted in the circs and that the evidence didn't prove he was innocent of all charges.

 

[boardlumps62]

I criticised the retrospectivity of the rule as unfair when it was first applied but unfortunately, there are precedents in both the State and Federal parliaments where legislation has been retrospectively applied to convict people of offences. Retrospectivity by itself therefore probably won't stand up as an issue.

The other issue is the outcome of the hearings. He has been found not guilty of one offence but at this stage there are no findings on the other four charges- he is effectively in limbo- neither guilty or innocent as a result of the hung jury.

If that remains the case ie the DPP don't proceed with a third trial, it may be that De Belin and/or the club proceed with a legal action but given that he hasn't been found not guilty, it may be difficult to win compensation for loss of earnings, payment for services not received etc. At the very least, it promises to be a lawyer's picnic.

But he is innocent the DPP are just trying to prove he is guilty of the chargers as claimed by the supposed victim.
Everyone seems to forget this fact.
And it was 6 charges he was found not guilty of the 6th if I'm correct.

 

[aussie7798]

To reach this verdict they must have decided that the anal penetration was accidental, even if the sex was non consensual.

That cant be right. My thinking is they would of came to the conclusion that anal penetration didn't happen at all

The reporting since the 2nd trial finished indicates that the claimant backed JDBs version of events in regards to this.

Incredibly strange that the DPP choose to file a charge not even backed by the claimant.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

I doubt the guys in charge of the crown case are going to say the 3rd trial cause is “ hopeless”.

Self-preservation ( or interest) would suggest they could be inclined to recommend another trial

The Director has to ensure he sniffs around and about for the truth about it. Piss the yes men and women off.

I was a speaking to a mate who is an ex nsw police detective inspector. From what he knows, he says he’s got a reasonable doubt.

He said he was mainly concerned about the victims conduct immediately after the event, which he said didn’t accord with his experience of similar crimes.

He was quick to add “ it’s just an opinion, I don’t know everything about it. “

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

The reporting since the 2nd trial finished indicates that the claimant backed JDBs version of events in regards to this.

Incredibly strange that the DPP choose to file a charge not even backed by the claimant.

Excellent point and undermines the prosecution.

You just want a fair and vanilla prosecution. That’s their job. It’s not to get all creative.

Some say the odpp is in a bit of a mess internally, but I’ll leave that there.

 

[possm]

To reach this verdict they must have decided that the anal penetration was accidental, even if the sex was non consensual.

Some must have believed De Belin, some not. He is innocent until proven guilty. There is more to this than meets the eye.

 

[emack]

‘ Not guilty ‘ maybe , but deaf , dumb and bluudy stupid without a doubt .

At last...............some one speaks the truth!!!!!! Well said Gareth67!!!!!

 

[FlameThrower]

As much as I liked him as a player , he is now 2 and half years out of the game and it’s changed dramatically since he last played.

The whole thing is a sorry saga with no winners.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

What hasn’t been discussed so much is that you have the two defendants each giving evidence and you would think if they were lying about what each of them saw, heard etc, their would be stark and profound differences in their versions.

Under a withering cross examination by an expert prosecutor you would expect their answers to deviate significantly or otherwise depart.

Accordingly holes would appear in their versions. They wouldn’t add up.

I would expect some deviations, but so far as i understand the case, there hasn’t been any smoking gun elicited from the defendants accounts.

 

[Illusion]

Your last sentence is the whole crux of the matter. A standing prick has no conscience.

Who we talking about Jack or Mary ....... ?

 

[_Johnsy]

While I have been reluctant to comment too much on this matter, I found one small snippet interesting. It relates to the charge that they were found not guilty.

I read in an article that when Jack had “accidentally” penetrated the defendants anus, he apologised remorsefully. The woman in question agreed this to be correct whilst giving evidence.

I understand that consent can be withdrawn at any point, and from that point on a rape can be committed by continuation of intercourse against the defts wishes.

Those words just don't appear to be consistent with a person who was committing rape. Again, it is just one very small aspect of a very complex trial, just thought that was an interesting tidbit.

Edited:
The above comment in no way shape or form is casting doubt on the defendants version of events.

 

[aussie7798]

While I have been reluctant to comment too much on this matter, I found one small snippet interesting. It relates to the charge that they were found not guilty.

I read in an article that when Jack had “accidentally” penetrated the defendants anus, he apologised remorsefully. The woman in question agreed this to be correct whilst giving evidence.

I understand that consent can be withdrawn at any point, and from that point on a rape can be committed by continuation of intercourse against the defts wishes.

Those words just don't appear to be consistent with a person who was committing rape. Again, it is just one very small aspect of a very complex trial, just thought that was an interesting tidbit.

Edited:
The above comment in no way shape or form is casting doubt on the defendants version of events.

Its why i cant see anyway forward for the trial. The claimants version was that there was never any consent from when she fled the bathroom. That does not feel like a exchange that would take place during a rape and it would also be irrelevant as the accident would have occurred during the committal of the larger crime.

 

[_Johnsy]

Its why i cant see anyway forward for the trial. The claimants version was that there was never any consent from when she fled the bathroom. That does not feel like a exchange that would take place during a rape and it would also be irrelevant as the accident would have occurred during the committal of the larger crime.

I agree re: no 3rd trial.

If the DPP were not able to secure a conviction on any of the charges laid, especially when you consider they would have learned a few lessons after the first trial. The biggest issue IMO is with those lessons learned, they still were not able to prepare for, and secure a conviction on any of the charges. I think we see Jack back on the field soon (regardless of mine or anyone's opinion on him).

 

[aussie7798]

Jack de Belin rape trial: The evidence that cleared NRL star, Callan Sinclair of a charge (news.com.au)

Despite the fundamental difference in their overall stories, the woman and Mr de Belin’s evidence of that exact moment included a similar thread of apology.

The court heard it happened after they moved from a bed to a desk, and while Mr Sinclair had left the room.


On her evidence, the woman claims Mr de Belin picked her up and carried her to the next piece of furniture without pulling out of her body.


She was facing the footballer with her back to the wall when she claims he turned her legs to the side and deliberately tried to penetrate her other orifice.

“And that’s when I screamed ‘stop’ because it really hurt,” she told the court.

Asked by crown prosecutor David Scully what happened next, she replied: “He took it out.”

“Did he say anything?” Mr Scully continued.

“I think he said ‘sorry’,” she responded.

On the stand Mr de Belin, 30, said he and the woman walked together to the desk where she jumped up to rest herself against it.

The former State of Origin representative said they continued to have sex, claiming she was “enjoying it” and “moaning” when he “accidentally prodded my penis inside … the wrong hole”.

“I could tell she grimaced and it wasn’t pleasant and said ‘oh’. I said ‘sorry’,” he told the court.

He said “I asked her if she could help a brother out” and she guided him from there before the sex resumed.

If this is accurate my faith in the jury is a bit shaken

If a accidental penetration occurred during the ongoing crime its rape and he is guilty of the 6th charge.
If a accidental penetration occurred and it was not with a rape he is not guilty.

How then do the jury all agree on this charge but not the other 5.

f**ked if i understand.

 

[BLM01]

Jack de Belin rape trial: The evidence that cleared NRL star, Callan Sinclair of a charge (news.com.au)

Despite the fundamental difference in their overall stories, the woman and Mr de Belin’s evidence of that exact moment included a similar thread of apology.

The court heard it happened after they moved from a bed to a desk, and while Mr Sinclair had left the room.


On her evidence, the woman claims Mr de Belin picked her up and carried her to the next piece of furniture without pulling out of her body.


She was facing the footballer with her back to the wall when she claims he turned her legs to the side and deliberately tried to penetrate her other orifice.

“And that’s when I screamed ‘stop’ because it really hurt,” she told the court.

Asked by crown prosecutor David Scully what happened next, she replied: “He took it out.”

“Did he say anything?” Mr Scully continued.

“I think he said ‘sorry’,” she responded.

On the stand Mr de Belin, 30, said he and the woman walked together to the desk where she jumped up to rest herself against it.

The former State of Origin representative said they continued to have sex, claiming she was “enjoying it” and “moaning” when he “accidentally prodded my penis inside … the wrong hole”.

“I could tell she grimaced and it wasn’t pleasant and said ‘oh’. I said ‘sorry’,” he told the court.

He said “I asked her if she could help a brother out” and she guided him from there before the sex resumed.

If this is accurate my faith in the jury is a bit shaken

If a accidental penetration occurred during the ongoing crime its rape and he is guilty of the 6th charge.
If a accidental penetration occurred and it was not with a rape he is not guilty.

How then do the jury all agree on this charge but not the other 5.

f**ked if i understand.

I don’t understand a lot of things with so called facts and events that took place

 

[Dragon David]

I am totally dumbfounded and flabbergasted as to what is going on! Does anybody outside of the 3 actually know? They said, she said and pop goes the weasel!

 

[slippery5]

Ideally it would be good to get closure with a guilty or not guilty verdict. Dropping the charges will still leave so much doubt and JDB will get tainted for life of something he may not have done. He is going to get targeted more with this result than if he had a not guilty verdict. Less or the same if he got a guilty verdict but at least if he got the guilty verdict he will be behind bars away from the public. Did he dodge a bullet nobody will know. I bet some Saints will assume he is innocent, the rest of the Saints fans and all NRL will assume guilty.

It will be hard for him to get back to what he was so paying him as much as it has been reported is risky but there were clubs chasing him and with his short time left in the game he needs to get all he can post retirement as he would have spent a ton of cash on this matter. This article about what Saints are paying him is a cheap shot at Saints I feel as they are saying that they are supporting a bloke who has done wrong for the club and the code.

I think for his own welfare he was better off leaving Oz and going to play in England where they would know less of him.

Not to mention the reception he is going to get from from the opposing team fans.... Remembering Lodge, although it did eventually die off.