Matthew Johns to consider legal avenues

[juanfarkall]

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

If I was a snail, I would now be considering legal action.

 

[El Diablo]

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

ot it happened just the way the Police were told and she knows she can't prove anything wrong happened because it didn't

 

[El Diablo]

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?

her family didn't know and it was in the papers

 

[bartman]

And so...? The were just examples of reasons maybe why she couldn't have been bothered to sue. Was her actual name ever in the paper the way OJ's victims were named? etc etc

She got the support she needed on application to the NZ government (for health needs and ongoing income support)... what more would she hope to gain for her trouble and trauma by going through with civil action?

Either way, she didn't/can't take legal action - and neither will/can Johns now. Whether we all like it or not this falls in the "grey area" inbetween.

 

[El Diablo]

and neither will/can Johns now

says who?

 

[bartman]

Um, me? That's the opinion I've posted in this thread from the start.

The original article doesn't even mention what or who Johns can take legal action over. It's an empty claim in the article, and as has been posted, Johns' best approach in terms of his future career would be to let this incident slide, and plan his return for late this year or early next year.

 

[El Diablo]

you seemed to be statng it as a fact, not opinion

 

[matt]

Good!! fry the liar and the spin doctors.

on second thoughts NO!! it will only prolong this snorefest.

 

[sportive cupid]

The original article in this thread begins with sayign Jihns is believed to be weighing up his legal options,then leaves that idea and goes on to discuss the Four Corners response.
Nowhere can I see does it actually show evidence that Johns is thinking of this??/

I wonder if he rally is.

Interesting comments coming out of the four corners response though.

Firstly that it was in fact one of the players who told police they came in the bathroom window.

Clare doesnt even know the owner ofthe hotel who seems to know her enough to judge her.

New evidence coming to light?

 

[bartman]

you seemed to be statng it as a fact, not opinion

My bad... but I'm sure you can see it's clearly opinion.

Like when someone says Parra can't/won't make the top 8...?

 

[sportive cupid]

Lol Bart..that is definately FACT:lol:

 

[LESStar58]

c) is now willing to personally spread the warning message to NRL players to be very careful of their actions and their respect for women involved in their future sexual dealings, by becoming a regular part of the NRL education program conducted by Vagana etc.

I had a lecturer at TAFE about 5 years ago but was shocked to learn from a former classmate that I still see that he was in prison many years ago for rape. Not sure of the exact details but I'm told that it was actually aggravted rape.

Given this fella's general attitude and presence when I was around him I thought he was the guy least likely. Again not sure of the circumstances but I'm of the understanding he now actually works with rape victims and women's support groups.

A similiar ciriculum would suit Johns. I mean, I have no doubt he is still very well respected despite all this. The message would hit home stronger to the NYC squads etc with Matty on board.

 

[bartman]

I had a lecturer at TAFE about 5 years ago but was shocked to learn from a former classmate that I still see that he was in prison many years ago for rape. Not sure of the exact details but I'm told that it was actually aggravted rape.

Given this fella's general attitude and presence when I was around him I thought he was the guy least likely. Again not sure of the circumstances but I'm of the understanding he now actually works with rape victims and women's support groups.

A similiar ciriculum would suit Johns. I mean, I have no doubt he is still very well respected despite all this. The message would hit home stronger to the NYC squads etc with Matty on board.

Exactly. He can use his standing in the league community(and obvious communications skills) to have a stronger impact perhaps than hearing the message from cleanskins like Vagana and O'Neill.

But first he has to accept a different sort of pain resulted from the incident, other than the one felt by himself (then and now), and his wife and children. Once he truly realises this (and his statements so far don't show it imo, then he'll be ready to perhaps start getting his career back, through making this suggestion to the league with a minimum of publicity.

 

[mik01]

defamation against 4 corners would be most likely - hence the 'strange' clarification response they issued. note the reference to 'at no time did we discuss consent' (or words to that effect).

my money is on his lawyers going over every word in that transcript, and as 'consent' was brought into contention and led to financial and reputation detriment, keep your ears peeled for future legal action against 4 corners scum, and possibly 'Clare' being named as a co-defendant.

i don't think this is an idle bluff...

 

[Canard]

It can't be defamation when its stating facts.

They cleary said within the show that there were not saying that a sexual assault happened.

 

[mik01]

It can't be defamation when its stating facts.

They cleary said within the show that there were not saying that a sexual assault happened.

she complained to police alleging sexual assault - they investigated and found nothing to substantiate.

then 4 cnrs dredges it up, naming one person out of possible 12.
i know the law in Qld relating to defamation, so will have to check out NSW - HOWEVER - the general rule is that if you lead someone to believe something is true, or cause others to ridicule or shun another person based on material that either leaves out facts, or misrepresents those facts, then yes - its possible to be defamatory.

I'm not saying 4 cnrs was, just that when it comes to Law nothing is black and white - stay tuned...

edit - by naming him specifically (ie only) they have cast an assumption on him such that we have all debated (as has the media) - ie that he allegedly sexually assaulted her. the damage to his rep and career is immeasurable - and he has not committed any crime. I would be getting my lawyers to scour every word of that transcript and taking them to the cleaners if possible...

 

[bartman]

she complained to police alleging sexual assault - they investigated and found nothing to substantiate.

They investigated and didn't find enough evidence to back up criminal charges... nothing more, nothing less.

then 4 cnrs dredges it up, naming one person out of possible 12.

They names 3. Johns, Firman, and Gallen who was said to have entered the room when it was all over.

I'm not saying 4 cnrs was, just that when it comes to Law nothing is black and white - stay tuned...

As has been said plenty of times in threads, Johns' best approach from here is to accept that his Footy Show job was based on public image, and that his actions (not the consent issue) have caused that public image to suffer, and hence his TV jobs to be untenable at this point in time.

Voss himself said that his research speaking to members of the public during that week showed that consent wasn't the issue the wider public were focussing on in terms of their opinion of Johns - it was the disrespect shown to women (his wife, the girl) by Matthew Johns himself being involved in the situation.

I suspect there asr eno legal avenues in this case, 4 Corners clarification statement reads quite strongly imo in all the right legal ways.

 

[bartman]

edit - by naming him specifically (ie only) they have cast an assumption on him such that we have all debated (as has the media) - ie that he allegedly sexually assaulted her. the damage to his rep and career is immeasurable - and he has not committed any crime. I would be getting my lawyers to scour every word of that transcript and taking them to the cleaners if possible...

They named three people...

And the assumption you claim they cast is drawing a long bow - there is a specific part of the 4 Corners show where they specifically state the opposite to what you say is the assumption they cast:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2567972.htm

SARAH FERGUSON: Four Corners doesn't say that what took place in room 21 of the Racecourse hotel was sexual assault.
But a woman involved in degrading group sex can still be traumatised whether she consents or not.

End of story... no legal argument.

 

[Canard]

Did people actually watch the programme in question or have they concentrated on the Tabloid frenzy after the event and drawn some interesting conclusions.

 

[Pete Cash]

The ABC have to prove it was true (easy enough to do-Johns doesn't deny it) and make an argument there was public interest (quite clearly there is)

Incidently I think the Australian legal system is backwards there. I believe in the United States system it is up to the person with the complaint to prove the allegations were false. A free press is vitally important.

EDIT

Also the ABC as I said would have had the story looked over by its law team and cleared for television. Do you think they run programmes without first checking legal advice first. Come on guys no television network would do that.