Matthew Johns to consider legal avenues

[legend]

"the outer reaches of the internet"

that must be us

I thought we were the inner sanctum???

 

[sharko]

they didn't sack him

i'd guess it's Four Corners. maybe their press release is a sign of panic

Why would 4 Corners panic? They put together a story that gave them killer ratings..the subjects of that story acknowledge their conduct..it has produced spin off stories for other networks..Johns management know the woman in question does not wish to testify due to the strain and stress she was put under..to cloud the waters the Johns management and co are attacking the woman..it is an age old ploy.
Johns is a grub and has been treated accordingly.

 

[Pierced Soul]

i do question the girls motivations for this because nothing good was ever going to come out of this story. she can say it's so others dont get hurt but her story isnt going to stop other girls going to rooms with groups of players.

i really cant see any legal avenues here, he hasnt disputed the fact he had sex with her, she hasnt said anything defamatory against him....

 

[*Sandy*]

i do question the girls motivations for this because nothing good was ever going to come out of this story. she can say it's so others dont get hurt but her story isnt going to stop other girls going to rooms with groups of players.

i really cant see any legal avenues here, he hasnt disputed the fact he had sex with her, she hasnt said anything defamatory against him....

Yeah I can't see it either.

 

[ramble_on]

i really cant see any legal avenues here, he hasnt disputed the fact he had sex with her, she hasnt said anything defamatory against him....

She named him and he lost his job. I doubt her and 4C would be targets, Ch9 and Storm may be, but they'd likely include 4C in initial litigation just to see if they'd put up some hush money. In the end all parties want to come out smelling like roses so it'd be likely that cheques, confidentiality agreements and prepared statements will all be drawn up and it'll be swept nicely under the mat.... Unless one of them decides going the hard yards would make better business sense...... (all supposition, I'm no lawyer)...

 

[bartman]

But there's nothing to sweep under the mat... and there's no-one for Johns to actually sue over anything? And so no need for hush money or confidentiality agreements...

 

[Pierced Soul]

But there's nothing to sweep under the mat... and there's no-one for Johns to actually sue over anything? And so no need for hush money or confidentiality agreements...

exactly.

he's lost his job because of the sesnationalism of the press, but at the end of the day nothing was actually done in a defmatory manner and he has admitted the incident took place. if she claimed he had raped her or coerced her that would be different.

if he denied it ever took place and police documents supported this then he could sue her for defmation

 

[Serc]

in Relation To The Newcastle Knights Section Of The Story, The Knights Were Frequently Updated During The Making Of The Story, Up To And Including Just Before Broadcast. no Comment From Any One In Any Part Of The Program Was Taken Out Of Context. Four Corners Has Received No Complaint Or Question From Anyone Actually Involved In The Story Suggesting The Contrary.

LOL

(stupid quote thing stuffing up the text )

 

[fish eel]

I imagine Matthew Johns would just want the incident to go away rather than drag it through the courts?

 

[ramble_on]

I guess I just have a hard time accepting that someone can lose their job for something that happened 7 years ago and was shown that no crime was committed and no-one can be held accountable.... as I said I'm no lawyer and you're more than likely correct but if the whole thing was meant to highlight a serious problem in the sport it could well have been done without naming and destroying anyone.....

 

[Perth Red]

Surely matty can get into the movies. In Hollywood this type of behaviour just makes you a bigger star! Johns would do well to keep his head down for a few months then come out when the spotlight has been turned to some other sap.

 

[Canard]

Also he hasn't actually "lost" either his Ch9 or Storm job, I mean I would assume he is still on fully pay or some sort of reduced salary.

 

[Rexxy]

FFS his manager is a two bit snail, but who is giving him legal advice?

 

[Kiki]

i think it would be a worse look public relations wise for him to pursue legal action. there is no clear defamation as everyone has already said. would be better if he just went away for awhile and then did the kinda thing bart described.

 

[myanonymoususername]

I imagine Matthew Johns would just want the incident to go away rather than drag it through the courts?

I'd expect so. Civil action just runs the risk of a whole lot of mud being thrown, both ways, that was not considered admissable evidence by the police in 2002. Laying low, copping some medicine and re-emerging next season would be the most sensible advice.

Plus going on the attack against an apparently vulnerable woman is not a good look for him in the PR stakes.

 

[El Diablo]

that was not considered admissable evidence by the police in 2002

you're making assumptions

who said there was any evidence considered inadmissable?

 

[bartman]

The general assumption is valid - don't civil cases have different levels of admissible evidence to criminal investigations? Eg OJ Simpson, Mark McGaw's "shadow" compensation case.

 

[El Diablo]

if that were the case why has she not sued like the families did in the OJ case?

 

[myanonymoususername]

The general assumption is valid - don't civil cases have different levels of admissible evidence to criminal investigations? Eg OJ Simpson, Mark McGaw's "shadow" compensation case.

Yep, criminal cases require "beyond reasonable doubt" as the standard of proof, civil ones "on the balance of probabilities".

Re: Matthew Johns to consider legal avenues
if that were the case why has she not sued like the families did in the OJ case?

Maybe, just maybe, she's not in it for the money.

 

[bartman]

if that were the case why has she not sued like the families did in the OJ case?

Because she couldn't be bothered? Because her families couldn't be bothered? because it wasn't all over the papers and there was no public perception to correct?

Could be loads of reasons, and the absence of her launching civil action proves nothing to a neutral mind.