No Bulldogs to be charged ?

[Dogs Of War]

On the radio this morning that the woman asked the club for $25,000 to make the matter go away, the Bulldogs declined that request. The Bulldogs passed this information to the Police.



Here it is...

Blackmail bid in gang-rape case
By Steve Barrett
April 23, 2004

A MYSTERY woman attempted to blackmail the Canterbury Bulldogs League Club over the recent gang-rape allegations, suggesting a $25,000 payment could put an end to the claims made against the players.

The club's former football manager Gary Hughes took the call from the woman in February just days after the scandal broke.

It has been alleged the caller indicated the "whole thing was getting out of hand and it could be settled for $25,000".

The club and Mr Hughes last night confirmed the blackmail incident had occurred and that it had been reported to the 12-man police Strikeforce McGuigon, which was set up to investigate sexual allegations by a 20-year-old woman.

The Australian understands the mystery caller did not identify herself or reveal whether she was known to the alleged victim.


Mr Hughes also confirmed he had been interviewed about the blackmail incident by Strikeforce McGuigon.

A NSW police spokeswoman said she could not confirm or deny any aspect concerning the gang-rape allegations because the investigation was still open.

Commissioner Ken Moroney confirmed last week the entire investigation brief had been sent to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions.

DPP solicitors have passed Strikeforce McGuigon's brief of evidence on to the director, Nicholas Cowdery, for his final opinion on whether charges will be laid.

The Australian also has learned that Bulldogs players waiting to be interviewed by police over the incident were asked for autographs by personnel at Orange police station, in central western NSW.

The embarrassing situation for Strikeforce McGuigon investigators was compounded when players were asked for autographs again while they had lunch at the station.

The Australian

 

[JK]

I am very glad that they refused - it adds a lot of credibility which (let's admit) we were sorely lacking.

 

[Suzie]

another anonymous call to the media ... a bit the other anonymous call ... sorry, not trying to stir, but I don't really think that this anonymous call is any more credible than the other one

 

[sretsoor]

Just because somone is not convicted doesnt actually mean they are innocent. The DPP has a responsibility not to waste tax payers money and has to look at each case realistically. If they feel they can get a conviction they will proceed. On the other hand, if they are lacking evidence to get a conviction they wont proceed. This does not mean it did or did not happen. Just means the whole issue is left in limbo. The law for a criminal conviction is black and white. It has to be beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction to stick. That is why if a conviction is not given, often the plaintiff will then proceed to the civil courts where it is not as strict and win compensation against the accused. Look at OJ Simpson, found not guilty in criminal court only to be found guilty in civil court and forced to pay millions.

 

[ibeme]

Well, all I can say is that I hope claims of blackmail have been investigated with the same thoroughness that the players have been.

 

[Eels Dude]

Presumption of innocence for the players is not necessarily presumption of lying for the alledged victim.

We don't know the story, but there could be a number of reasons for her giving a statement that is not entirely true.

Drugs and alcohol can blur both memory and judgement. I don't know if either of these were involved, but I know that I've woken up after a big night (alcohol only) and my memory of what occurred the night before has been entirely different to what actually occurred.

I've also woken up not knowing if a memory was a dream or a reality.

There could be many influencing factors that distort the facts.

In this case specifically the alledged victim is claiming she was sexuallt assaulted by six Bulldogs players. All of the Bulldogs players claim they did not have sex with her. One of the two parties is obviously lying. Why should we take the word of the players over the word of the woman in question just because there is no actual proof?

JK, I wouldn't go into a trial as a juror assuming a witness is lying, however in the case of contradictory reports it has to be said that sometimes you are going to have decide who you think is telling the truth and who is lying.

The judicial system doesn't allow for "do you think they committed the crime"? It asks "Is there evidence beyond reasonable doubt they committed the crime"?

 

[Dogaholic]

Presumption of innocence for the players is not necessarily presumption of lying for the alledged victim.

We don't know the story, but there could be a number of reasons for her giving a statement that is not entirely true.

Drugs and alcohol can blur both memory and judgement. I don't know if either of these were involved, but I know that I've woken up after a big night (alcohol only) and my memory of what occurred the night before has been entirely different to what actually occurred.

I've also woken up not knowing if a memory was a dream or a reality.

There could be many influencing factors that distort the facts.

In this case specifically the alledged victim is claiming she was sexuallt assaulted by six Bulldogs players. All of the Bulldogs players claim they did not have sex with her. One of the two parties is obviously lying. Why should we take the word of the players over the word of the woman in question just because there is no actual proof?

So if i just decided to one day say that i was raped by a few women, you would believe me and not the women?

 

[Eels Dude]

Presumption of innocence for the players is not necessarily presumption of lying for the alledged victim.

We don't know the story, but there could be a number of reasons for her giving a statement that is not entirely true.

Drugs and alcohol can blur both memory and judgement. I don't know if either of these were involved, but I know that I've woken up after a big night (alcohol only) and my memory of what occurred the night before has been entirely different to what actually occurred.

I've also woken up not knowing if a memory was a dream or a reality.

There could be many influencing factors that distort the facts.

In this case specifically the alledged victim is claiming she was sexuallt assaulted by six Bulldogs players. All of the Bulldogs players claim they did not have sex with her. One of the two parties is obviously lying. Why should we take the word of the players over the word of the woman in question just because there is no actual proof?

So if i just decided to one day say that i was raped by a few women, you would believe me and not the women?

I really don't see what that has to do with anything. I'm not claiming we should automatically believe the statement made by the alledged victim, but we should as least leave our minds open to the fact that she is telling the truth, rather than just wait for evidence to prove it.

And for the record yes, if you had a reasonable claim that you were sexually assaulted I see no reason for why I shouldn't believe you.

 

[ibeme]

Presumption of innocence for the players is not necessarily presumption of lying for the alledged victim.

We don't know the story, but there could be a number of reasons for her giving a statement that is not entirely true.

Drugs and alcohol can blur both memory and judgement. I don't know if either of these were involved, but I know that I've woken up after a big night (alcohol only) and my memory of what occurred the night before has been entirely different to what actually occurred.

I've also woken up not knowing if a memory was a dream or a reality.

There could be many influencing factors that distort the facts.

In this case specifically the alledged victim is claiming she was sexuallt assaulted by six Bulldogs players. All of the Bulldogs players claim they did not have sex with her. One of the two parties is obviously lying. Why should we take the word of the players over the word of the woman in question just because there is no actual proof?

So if i just decided to one day say that i was raped by a few women, you would believe me and not the women?

I really don't see what that has to do with anything. I'm not claiming we should automatically believe the statement made by the alledged victim, but we should as least leave our minds open to the fact that she is telling the truth, rather than just wait for evidence to prove it.

And for the record yes, if you had a reasonable claim that you were sexually assaulted I see no reason for why I shouldn't believe you.

Just out of interest Eels Dude, what are your thoughts regarding the blackmail claims?

 

[Dogaholic]

Presumption of innocence for the players is not necessarily presumption of lying for the alledged victim.

We don't know the story, but there could be a number of reasons for her giving a statement that is not entirely true.

Drugs and alcohol can blur both memory and judgement. I don't know if either of these were involved, but I know that I've woken up after a big night (alcohol only) and my memory of what occurred the night before has been entirely different to what actually occurred.

I've also woken up not knowing if a memory was a dream or a reality.

There could be many influencing factors that distort the facts.

In this case specifically the alledged victim is claiming she was sexuallt assaulted by six Bulldogs players. All of the Bulldogs players claim they did not have sex with her. One of the two parties is obviously lying. Why should we take the word of the players over the word of the woman in question just because there is no actual proof?

So if i just decided to one day say that i was raped by a few women, you would believe me and not the women?

I really don't see what that has to do with anything. I'm not claiming we should automatically believe the statement made by the alledged victim, but we should as least leave our minds open to the fact that she is telling the truth, rather than just wait for evidence to prove it.

And for the record yes, if you had a reasonable claim that you were sexually assaulted I see no reason for why I shouldn't believe you.

I agree, we should also at the very LEAST leave our minds open to the fact that the bulldogs players are telling the truth.

 

[Eels Dude]

It's an interesting situation actually. I think they should be investigated as a serious matter. It could be someone pulling a prank, it could be a con artist just trying to take advantage of the situation, or it could have merit as an actual threat made by someone known to the victim. It's a serious matter, and is infering with the police's prior investigation.

 

[PB]

It's an interesting situation actually. I think they should be investigated as a serious matter. It could be someone pulling a prank, it could be a con artist just trying to take advantage of the situation, or it could have merit as an actual threat made by someone known to the victim. It's a serious matter, and is infering with the police's prior investigation.

It shouldnt be investigated at all. it should not have even been reported The person, left no details, refused to say if they were the person, or even new the person. Just an amateur extorcian attempt. And you can't investigate much when there is nothing to investigate.

 

[Eels Dude]

I'm not sure about that. If it was a con then it should be investigates. Whether it was an amatuer attempt or not, it was still an attempt at extortian which was interfering with police business.

 

[Fibroman]

just another example of how good it would be to be a fly on the wall/edge of the pool.

 

[Eels Dude]

Presumption of innocence for the players is not necessarily presumption of lying for the alledged victim.

We don't know the story, but there could be a number of reasons for her giving a statement that is not entirely true.

Drugs and alcohol can blur both memory and judgement. I don't know if either of these were involved, but I know that I've woken up after a big night (alcohol only) and my memory of what occurred the night before has been entirely different to what actually occurred.

I've also woken up not knowing if a memory was a dream or a reality.

There could be many influencing factors that distort the facts.

In this case specifically the alledged victim is claiming she was sexuallt assaulted by six Bulldogs players. All of the Bulldogs players claim they did not have sex with her. One of the two parties is obviously lying. Why should we take the word of the players over the word of the woman in question just because there is no actual proof?

So if i just decided to one day say that i was raped by a few women, you would believe me and not the women?

I really don't see what that has to do with anything. I'm not claiming we should automatically believe the statement made by the alledged victim, but we should as least leave our minds open to the fact that she is telling the truth, rather than just wait for evidence to prove it.

And for the record yes, if you had a reasonable claim that you were sexually assaulted I see no reason for why I shouldn't believe you.

I agree, we should also at the very LEAST leave our minds open to the fact that the bulldogs players are telling the truth.

I definately agree with you there and i'm definately doing so. However, to say that these players are 100% innocent until proven otherwise is a big step up from that.

 

[Dogaholic]

Presumption of innocence for the players is not necessarily presumption of lying for the alledged victim.

We don't know the story, but there could be a number of reasons for her giving a statement that is not entirely true.

Drugs and alcohol can blur both memory and judgement. I don't know if either of these were involved, but I know that I've woken up after a big night (alcohol only) and my memory of what occurred the night before has been entirely different to what actually occurred.

I've also woken up not knowing if a memory was a dream or a reality.

There could be many influencing factors that distort the facts.

In this case specifically the alledged victim is claiming she was sexuallt assaulted by six Bulldogs players. All of the Bulldogs players claim they did not have sex with her. One of the two parties is obviously lying. Why should we take the word of the players over the word of the woman in question just because there is no actual proof?

So if i just decided to one day say that i was raped by a few women, you would believe me and not the women?

I really don't see what that has to do with anything. I'm not claiming we should automatically believe the statement made by the alledged victim, but we should as least leave our minds open to the fact that she is telling the truth, rather than just wait for evidence to prove it.

And for the record yes, if you had a reasonable claim that you were sexually assaulted I see no reason for why I shouldn't believe you.

I agree, we should also at the very LEAST leave our minds open to the fact that the bulldogs players are telling the truth.

I definately agree with you there and i'm definately doing so. However, to say that these players are 100% innocent until proven otherwise is a big step up from that.

That could cut both ways, which is why im assuming innocence on ALL parts until all there for us to see.

 

[[furrycat]]

So would the minoirty here still assume the bulldogs were guilty if the DNA did not match? The case would be dropped... This is lack of evidence and shows the doggies were innocent, but then again everyone can say they bribed the medical officials.

 

[Crusader]

I don't think innocent is the right word cat, this kind of gang-bang behaviour obviously goes on and should not be condoned imo.
Whether there was any kind of sexual assault as such will most likely never be known, I think everyone should just learn from it and move on.

 

[RB30DETT]

It's an interesting situation actually. I think they should be investigated as a serious matter. It could be someone pulling a prank, it could be a con artist just trying to take advantage of the situation, or it could have merit as an actual threat made by someone known to the victim. It's a serious matter, and is infering with the police's prior investigation.

It shouldnt be investigated at all. it should not have even been reported The person, left no details, refused to say if they were the person, or even new the person. Just an amateur extorcian attempt. And you can't investigate much when there is nothing to investigate.

Seems that you can if there is enough media speculation.

 

[ibeme]

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9372836%5E26462,00.html

Witnesses reject rape claim
By Steve Barrett
April 24, 2004

TWO independent witnesses appear to have contradicted claims by a 20-year-old woman that she was pack-raped by at least six Bulldogs rugby league players at a Coffs Harbour resort in February.

The male witnesses, whose statements have been taken by police and lawyers for the Bulldogs, say they saw the woman at different times at the Pacific Bay Resort's lower swimming pool, but never with six players.

The Weekend Australian has spoken to both men, who confirmed they made similar statements to police and Bulldogs lawyers.

Both witnesses give a very different picture of what is alleged to have happened on Sunday, February 22, at the lower pool in the Pacific Bay resort, also the home camp of the Australian Wallabies.

The first witness said he was approached by a young woman and a fit-looking man who asked him for the quickest way to the beach.

But The Weekend Australian has been told the couple, instead of going to the beach, went swimming in one of the resort pools after the woman used a public shower while fully clothed.

The man saw the same couple again, swimming in the pool about 6.30am when the sun had come up.

He told investigators the couple appeared to be enjoying themselves and there was nothing unusual about the woman's manner.

Shortly after 6.30am, the second witness arrived and saw a man sitting on the pool's edge with a woman standing in the water facing him. The witness said he believed they were engaged in oral sex.

"She wasn't blowing bubbles into his belly button," he said. "I just slammed the gate hard to let them know someone was entering the pool.

"We get confronted with different things every day. Slamming the gate is just our way of dealing with things like this."

The details are sketchy, but The Weekend Australian has learnt that the alleged victim had later attempted to enter the room of two Bulldogs players but they told her they were rushing to get ready for a team training session at 8am, so they closed the door in her face. It was only some minutes after that she was found crying on the lawn just metres from the pool, with her clothing still wet.

It was then she had made an allegation to a house cleaner that she had been anally, orally and vaginally raped by six Bulldogs players at the lower pool area.

The Bulldogs' new chief executive, Malcolm Noad, said great damage had been done to the club's players and their families and the alleged victim.

"It has been a very tough time, and still is for the players and their families, especially those with children at school," he said.

"As far as the central allegations goes, and the investigation, I'll just wait until the DPP makes a decision before I comment specifically about that. Then the club will be in a clear position to take whatever action is appropriate."

The Australian