Matthew Johns, the Media Rape Libel and the War Against Sport - Letter to Gus

[robertmorris]

no one has accused Matthew Johns of rape. not even in the most bias articles like Rebecca Wilsons has that been suggested.

personally i think she was probably consenting (or perhaps silent) during the sex act, but then regretted it later and freaked out.

Alright, then whenever you talk about the moral and professional failings of Matthew, make sure you qualify what you are saying by making known your belief that, whilst immoral, he is not a rapist and did not rape 'Clare'. It is an enormous difference, and a very important one.

If you go back and read articles on the issue or get the chance to watch the media again, you will see the rape slur and the issue of consent, over and over and over again. It's an unjust slur that Matthew has been made to wear and one he does not deserve.

Not that you are insinuating it, I will make the point that rape is not anachronistic, later regret is not rape. The issue of consent is consent at the time given and did the defendant (though of course charges were never laid) honestly believe they had consent. In your scenario, if 'Clare' said nothing, and made no attempt to communicate she did not consent, and the players had an honest belief that consent existed, it would not be rape. Please note this is not what I think happened. The only reliable evidence I can make judgement on is that of Matthew Johns and that I take on good faith of the players statements to police, who drew the conclusion that no case against them existed. Not for sexual assault, not for indecent assault, and not for any other crime.

 

[8Ball]

btw i'm not downplaying the threat of suicide or anything, my cousin killed himself when he was 19 and my aunty is a campaigner for suicide prevention so i understand where you're coming from.

Exactly right. Its quite often stigmatized in society, but when some signs do show, it mustn't be dealt with in a flippant "he/she will get over it" attitude.

 

[deluded pom?]

I don't believe for one minute that Matthew Johns or Brett Firman raped "Clare" and I don't think either are being accused of it. I believe that Johns and Firman were in a motel room with "Clare" having consensual sex with her but that ten uninvited team mates entered the room and, for want of a better word, violated "Clare" without her consent. Not rape but sexual abuse/indecent assault, call it what you will. Matthew Johns, for whatever reason, has had to carry the can.

I don't think I made myself clear there robert. I meant that some of the uninvited had sexually abused/indecently assaulted "Clare" not Johns or Firman.

 

[robertmorris]

I've seen it reported that some of the uninvited wiped their penises on "Clare's" face. It's not penetration but if unwanted could be seen as sexual abuse.

That could be indecent or common assault, however one of the defences to such assault is consent. The police investigated and found no case. That includes for indecent or common assault. They have indicated that nothing has changed that conclusion.

To be guilty you must be found so beyond a reasonable doubt. 'Clare's' case could not even jump the first hurdle of having charges laid.

She has made no attempt to launch civil action in the intervening time. Her interview is pure vigilantism and slander, the veracity of it was not investigated, other then by police at the time, and she has never said it from a witness box where it can be properly assessed. By any standard, a reasonable person could not hold an assumption that Matthew or the players are guilty of any crime.

 

[bartman]

Sorry I edited my post after you quoted it.

Edit: I will just add that whilst I'm of the belief that he did harbour these thoughts, I am by no means certain.

No worries.

 

[deluded pom?]

Then why doesn't Johns sue "Clare" for slander and clear his name? I'm sure he could afford a great brief to fight his case. Or is it the moralistic view of C9 that has cost him his job?

 

[bartman]

She has made no attempt to launch civil action in the intervening time. Her interview is pure vigilantism and slander, the veracity of it was not investigated, other then by police at the time, and she has never said it from a witness box where it can be properly assessed. By any standard, a reasonable person could not hold an assumption that Matthew or the players are guilty of any crime.

Mind you, she did successfully apply for some form of victim's compensation in New Zealand at some point following the incident, as I understand it. That would have involved some assessment of the situation and its impact, but of course not a legal one.

And in context, the group of players were foreign visitors to that country, and the effort of launching civil action against people that are in a different jurisdiction has to be weighed up when claiming her failure to launch civil action if proof of anything at all.

Not wishing to take lengthy issue here - nor believing any of us here can know conclusively what happened - but there is I believe a need to apply the same logic to criticisms made here of the woman's case as are being applied to a call to act in defence of public criticisms of MJ's and the players' behaviours.

 

[robertmorris]

Then why doesn't Johns sue "Clare" for slander and clear his name? I'm sure he could afford a great brief to fight his case. Or is it the moralistic view of C9 that has cost him his job?

I would be open to it and it is still early days. But how far do you have to go to clear an innocent name? It should have ended when police and prosecutors found no case. He has already won in the justice system when the case never became a case. Better to win in the court of public opinion where 'Clare' has taken her fight from behind a blurred screen. Civil cases can take a long time, and at the end of the day your battling a mentally disturbed woman, do you really win and what does the public think of your victory? That being said I would support him if he did.

If you are interested in similar defamation cases look into the Mark McGaw case.

As I wrote somewhere else on this forum, it is rare that the person in 'Clare's' position is sued, more likely the media who first reported her story.

In the Duke Lacrosse case, Crystal Magnum, to the best of my knowledge, was not sued, despite her outrageous lies. The state and the college were.

 

[Kiki]

Exactly right. Its quite often stigmatized in society, but when some signs do show, it mustn't be dealt with in a flippant "he/she will get over it" attitude.

oh yep i agree completely. if Matthew is really having those thoughts then I hope he is seeking help.

Alright, then whenever you talk about the moral and professional failings of Matthew, make sure you qualify what you are saying by making known your belief that, whilst immoral, he is not a rapist and did not rape 'Clare'. It is an enormous difference, and a very important one.

mate, don't tell me what to do.

not only have i never insinuated he was a rapist, i have also never said i think anything he did is 'immoral'. in fact this whole time i have made no personal judgement on him or anyone else involved, including the girl, because i wasn't there in that room. simple as that.

just because i'm not waving the FREE MATTY JOHNZZZZ flag doesn't mean i think he's a sh*t person. far from it.

but fact is, as i said before, he has actively pursued a public profile and fair or not, when you do that you have to know that everything you do will be scrutinised. that's just life.

 

[robertmorris]

Mind you, she did successfully apply for some form of victim's compensation in New Zealand at some point following the incident, as I understand it. That would have involved some assessment of the situation and its impact, but of course not a legal one.

And in context, the group of players were foreign visitors to that country, and the effort of launching civil action against people that are in a different jurisdiction has to be weighed up when claiming her failure to launch civil action if proof of anything at all.

Not wishing to take lengthy issue here - nor believing any of us here can know conclusively what happened - but there is I believe a need to apply the same logic to criticisms made here of the woman's case as are being applied to a call to act in defence of public criticisms of MJ's and the players' behaviours.

I agree that eveything involved with this incident should be looked over with a critical eye.

Civil cases don't work that way, it would be filed where it happened, if Matt or the players didn't turn up, that would be entirely their problem. In that happened she would win her case automatically and without any scrutiny, including whatever dollar amount she put down on her claim.

The health assessment has virtually no bearing on the veracity of her claims. Would you consider that a fair trial? No witnesses? No cross-examination? No forensics? etc... And to what standard? The fact she was treated by a psych isn't great evidence by itself, if she is mentally unstable she needs treatment regardless of the facts of the hotel. What she told the psych may be valuable evidence, did her story change over time? Was the story she told the psych plausable or possible by the known evidence?

None of it makes up for the fact that police and prosecutors found no case to answer. No evidence has come forward that she made complaints about that determination. She has not launched any civil action, despite her loses, I mean think of the case she would have: She can't work and she commited self-harm - thats an enourmous paymout to be had. Lastly she has slandered the players, anonymously, from behind a blurred screen, admitting being vindicitve and threatened to kill them... She is not credible and I can not see how any reasonable person could hold any faith in the veracity of her story. And this is without referring to the evidence of other witnesses, who have named themselves, and have repeated their statements made to police from seven years ago.

 

[robertmorris]

but fact is, as i said before, he has actively pursued a public profile and fair or not, when you do that you have to know that everything you do will be scrutinised. that's just life.

You fail the moral test. It is never fair to be slandered as a rapist, you may not be doing it, but by not condemning it, by having no empathy for the man, you are condoning it. Public profile or not, nobody deserves to be slurred as a rapist, unless found guilty or at fault by the courts. There is no moral middle ground, either you find it abhorrent, or you think its ok.

 

[bartman]

Fair point on civil cases being lodged wherever a situation occurred.

I wasn't putting up the health assessment as a comparison to a judicial trial, and specifically mentioned that. It was put as a response to your claim the interview was "pure vigilantism and slander, the veracity of it was not investigated" - which seems to forget that the interview was also about the state of her life since the incident, rather than entirely focussing on Matthew Johns.

You are attempting to put a calm, fair and well-stated case for why people should jump to the defence at the seeming injustices put onto Matthew Johns. However, as has been pointed out, Matthew Johns being stood down from his jobs is not an "injustice" as such in my opinion - just a business decision, understandable in my view under the circumstances you have described.

In public life (entertainers, personalities, politicians, artists etc) people ride the waves of popularity, but also risk a hard landing when they eventual come to the shore. As others have said, I hope MJ has appropriate support at this time for what he is going through. But I personally won't be writing any letters etc - the businesses concerned have to respond in the best financial way to the perceptions of the wider community. He will likely be reinstated later on at a more appropriate time (end of this year/start of next).

 

[robertmorris]

Fair point on civil cases being lodged wherever a situation occurred.

I wasn't putting up the health assessment as a comparison to a judicial trial, and specifically mentioned that. It was put as a response to your claim the interview was "pure vigilantism and slander, the veracity of it was not investigated" - which seems to forget that the interview was also about the state of her life since the incident, rather than entirely focussing on Matthew Johns.

You are attempting to put a calm, fair and well-stated case for why people should jump to the defence at the seeming injustices put onto Matthew Johns. However, as has been pointed out, Matthew Johns being stood down from his jobs is not an "injustice" as such in my opinion - just a business decision, understandable in my view under the circumstances you have described.

In public life (entertainers, personalities, politicians, artists etc) people ride the waves of popularity, but also risk a hard landing when they eventual come to the shore. As others have said, I hope MJ has appropriate support at this time for what he is going through. But I personally won't be writing any letters etc - the businesses concerned have to respond in the best financial way to the perceptions of the wider community. He will likely be reinstated later on at a more appropriate time (end of this year/start of next).

You may think it likely he will get his job back, but it is not definite, and he would still have his job otherwise. Just because he may only lose his job for a few months rather than forever, doesn't make it right.

If the issue were only his infidelity or the morality of consensual group sex he would not have lost his job; Channel 9 and his other employers would not have been compelled to fire him (maybe the NRL would have).

It is the insinuation that he gangraped 'Clare' that got him fired, that is behind the whole hoopla and that is driving the media frenzy. It is wrong, it is unfair and completely unjustified.

The rape libel against Matthew is a duress against his employers that motivated his dismissal. I don't think you can argue that his other moral failings would have resulted in the treatment he has received or the damage done to his reputation.

I believe that over the coming days and weeks there exists a critical moment where either 'Clare's' narrative of the event, or Matthew's, will win out in the public's mind. If 'Clare's' wins, then Matthew is forever branded a rapist and his career is over permanently. At the moment she is dominating the air and print space and has the media's favour, and by virtue of that alone she will win and get her revenge. The tide appears to be turning, in another thread I commented that the media is now asking the question of whether she will be charged with making false accusation.

Please have a read of the original letter, or reread the first part about Matthew, to understand better my argument and why I make it. It is wrong what has happened to Matthew, and it is wrong that has a very good chance of being made permanent, with Matt forever blacklisted as a criminal and rapist.

 

[bartman]

You may think it likely he will get his job back, but it is not definite, and he would still have his job otherwise. Just because he may only lose his job for a few months rather than forever, doesn't make it right.

If the issue were only his infidelity or the morality of consensual group sex he would not have lost his job; Channel 9 and his other employers would not have been compelled to fire him (maybe the NRL would have).

Sorry. The "firing" (or more accurately mutual standing down) of Johns is purely a business decision, as will be his resumption of duties. To assume a moral dimension to the business decisions of his employers is to give them credit for a depth of thinking that just doesn't occur.

He would have lost his job if he was seen in public picking his nose, and if the public reaction to that somehow made his position as a TV host and face untenable, in a financial sense. I think you're introducing an issue (or an effect) to the equation where none necessarily exists. Public perception is fickle, and so it is entirely plausible that he would lose his job entirely on the basis of register wider public morality over any manner of incident. Of course sexual incidents carry significantly more weight in people's minds than others, but that doesn't mean their moral judgement is therefore one of rape libel as you are arguing.

I think your case for the "rape libel" is overstated - Voss specifically stated on the footy show that his indications were that the public view was formed about perceptions of the lack of respect toward the woman in the manner of the act in Christchurch - not the issue of consent. There was a good article yesterday discussing the differences between what the wider community may regard as consensual group sex, and reported elements of this case of sport team group sex. Link: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25495581-5001021,00.html

I believe that over the coming days and weeks there exists a critical moment where either 'Clare's' narrative of the event, or Matthew's, will win out in the public's mind. If 'Clare's' wins, then Matthew is forever branded a rapist and his career is over permanently. At the moment she is dominating the air and print space and has the media's favour, and by virtue of that alone she will win and get her revenge. The tide appears to be turning, in another thread I commented that the media is now asking the question of whether she will be charged with making false accusation.

I don't think it's turning anymore - in fact I think the Johns thing has peaked, and the media/public are now going onto explore the other incidents? Hence the stories rehashed over the weekend about the Bronocs toilet incident, and the woman involved in the Coffs allegations. There are no longer any links re Johns specifically on the fornt page of the SMH website.

The Johns situation has reached a resolution for now in my opinion - unless NZ police belatedly decide to charge Clare with making false allegations 7 years ago (unlikely), I think Matthew will just sit his time out, and return to duties with less prominance (commentator only?) at the end of this year, or for the start of next. Public commentators are already pencilling the redemption script in - link: http://www.smh.com.au/news/lhqnews/...ne-for-too-long/2009/05/16/1242335930891.html

Please have a read of the original letter, or reread the first part about Matthew, to understand better my argument and why I make it. It is wrong what has happened to Matthew, and it is wrong that has a very good chance of being made permanent, with Matt forever blacklisted as a criminal and rapist.

No dramas, I think understand your argument well enough. Just the more you discuss it, the less I agree with parts of it.

 

[Rudderriffic]

didn't they both have a long history of depression and emotional problems though? i know Charmaine did anyway.

btw i'm not downplaying the threat of suicide or anything, my cousin killed himself when he was 19 and my aunty is a campaigner for suicide prevention so i understand where you're coming from.

As far as a history of emotional problems or depression goes, Johns does have a family history for mental illness (Joey's admission of suffering from bipolar after the drug scandal). Not particularly indicating that I believe he has a pre-existing mental illness, just that the possibility is there and that Gould's concerns may not have been that exaggerated.

 

[ramble_on]

I think your case for the "rape libel" is overstated

Seems to me most media are calling it a sex scandal, which is insinuative of a form of assault or rape.

 

[bartman]

It is a sex scandal, since sex was involved. But that's different to being a rape scandal...

I think back to Voss's statement on the footy show, that the people he was interviewing on the street weren't bothered by the consent issue, in coming to their moral judgements. Therefore this whole focus on the supposed rape libel is missing the mark of why the wider public wasn't too impressed anyway.

The article I linked to about the differences between the nature of group sex undertaken by the public versus that undertaken by sport teams of men goes further imo to explain the morals behind the public reaction that has occurred - http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25495581-5001021,00.html

 

[Meth]

I'm not sure if there is an official definition as to what constitutes 'gang sex' and differentiates it from 'group sex', but I have not been comfortable with the media and those attacking Johns et all using the term 'gang sex', as it does imply something sinister and non-consensual

 

[sportive cupid]

I would be open to it and it is still early days. But how far do you have to go to clear an innocent name? It should have ended when police and prosecutors found no case. He has already won in the justice system when the case never became a case. Better to win in the court of public opinion where 'Clare' has taken her fight from behind a blurred screen. Civil cases can take a long time, and at the end of the day your battling a mentally disturbed woman, do you really win and what does the public think of your victory? That being said I would support him if he did.

If you are interested in similar defamation cases look into the Mark McGaw case.

As I wrote somewhere else on this forum, it is rare that the person in 'Clare's' position is sued, more likely the media who first reported her story.

In the Duke Lacrosse case, Crystal Magnum, to the best of my knowledge, was not sued, despite her outrageous lies. The state and the college were.

I'm having trouble following your argument.You say that Clare is lying part of your evidence for this is that she has failed to pursue civil justice? Then you say that Mattew Johns could persue civil justice -an in fact has a precedence in the Mark McGaw case.(which I confess I have no real interest in)Yet his failure to do this is more to do with the difficulties such a case would pose for sucess.?

Do you actually read your own posts?

 

[sportive cupid]

Oh and you are at pains to point out that this case is in NZ and not covered by the laws in Australian states when it comes to the degree of objectivity in bringing charges-yet your prize example comes from US law???:sarcasm: