O/T Bird to walk free as conviction quashed

[Mr Angry]

Sorry Mr A, your defence of the bloke is really bordering on ridiculous.

No need to be sorry.

I see the world different to you.

The facts are he was found not guilty, and guilty of lying to the police.

I simply say the vast majority would lie to the police, perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think so.

Was Greg stupid, yes, do I have issues with the police handling of the matter, yes.

Do I fear I could be arrested and dragged through courts for defending myself, yes.

Do I want Greg back at Cronulla, no.

What I see is a couple of young kids who got some bad advice on how to deal with a private problem.

What I see is over zealous police.

What I see is one player booted from employment and others allowed to play.

What I see is trial by media assuming guilt, and a trial with a judge finding not guilty.

What I see is a bunch of would be fascist, judge jury and executioners.

 

[parra pete]

Pete, how can we have a debate if you ignore what I write

Mate, there is no debate. The bloke was found NOT GUILTY and his conviction quashed. In other words, the COURT accepted his evidence given on OATH.
If he or she were telling lies under oath, they are guilty of perjury.
What else is there to debate...Just because you don't agree with the judicial system, doesn't mean it is wrong.
I would love to read what Bigfella has to say about this case, and the judicial system.
Again, I wish to state, I am not a fan of Greg Bird....

 

[The Colonel]

No need to be sorry.

I see the world different to you.

The facts are he was found not guilty, and guilty of lying to the police.

He was found not guilty on tha gaolable offence and as I've said good luck to them both. Seems there are many holes in their stories and what one actually is the truth only they know. The judge, in my opinion, seems to have beleived the latest one over the previous ones.

I simply say the vast majority would lie to the police, perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think so.

The vast majority may lie to police. The extent to which they intend on taking that lie is probably the biggest difference.

Was Greg stupid, yes, do I have issues with the police handling of the matter, yes.

I think the police may have been over zealous. They may also have seen many what appeared to be similar cases at the time of a partner lying to protect her partner and placing herself back in a dangerous position. If they hadn't have acted and he was violent and something much worse had have happened can you imagine the moral outrage there would be for not acting. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Do I fear I could be arrested and dragged through courts for defending myself, yes.

If you played similar games on the basis of similar advice then you probably would be.

Do I want Greg back at Cronulla, no.

I'm not fussed where the bloke goes but I understand the NRL's decision

What I see is a couple of young kids who got some bad advice on how to deal with a private problem.

Tomato, tomato. I see two young adults who haven't been straight throughout based on their own actions and a liberal dose of bad advice. Probably would have saved themselves a lot of anguish and money had they been upfront from the start. One of them is studying to be a lawyer and really should have known much better.

What I see is over zealous police.

Maybe. As I've said before damned if they do, damned if they don't.

What I see is one player booted from employment and others allowed to play.

And that is certainly something the game needs to look at.

What I see is trial by media assuming guilt, and a trial with a judge finding not guilty.

What I see is half a dozen different stories being used by both "kids" and the judge basing his finding on the final one.

What I see is a bunch of would be fascist, judge jury and executioners.

What I see is a lot of people who disagree with the judges findings.....

 

[Kornstar]

What i don't get is that Bird and Inglis are athletes, they are ridiculously powerful and their partners are in comparison to them, little twigs.

The self harm defence for both (very convenient for the Bird case too, now that the Inglis defence is that) seems odd.

Seriously, in the Inglis case who would punch them selves in the face/eyes to inflict self harm? Isn't it usually slitting wrists or downing a whole lot of pills? How did it come to her face looking like that if he didn't punch her? Are we to believe that he, an extremely strong athlete could not hold those scrawney little arms to stop her from bashing her own face?

Same goes for the Bird case? Are we to believe that she jammed a smashed glass in her eye? If she was slitting her wrists how could he not over power her and take the glass away without jamming it in her eye?

Think about the actions that would need to take place for someone to have the injury those girls had? That is alot of force which i would doubt either girl would have that strength.

Both men are extremely lucky that the girls stood by them otherwise they would both be sitting in prison right now.

OJ was found not guilty in a criminal court and guilty in the civil court. Who thinks he was not guilty regardless of the courts decision?

The courts hands are tied though because there are no witnesses, they could come to no other conclusion.

I would still like to know why it took over a year to come out with the "truth" in the Bird case? Why couldn't they say this last year? He looks guilty and that is why people will see him that way, no matter what actually happened!

Glad he is not linked to us!

 

[Mr Angry]

Maybe. As I've said before damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I will agree here Fruit man.

They do get blamed when they let it be and the girl ends up hurt again.

This is a wider problem, which to be frank should not happen in this country. In Iran and other places the woman has no choice, but here they bloody well do, there are shelters etc, hell in many cases I am sure a neighbour would help.

I know easier said than done, but really the ladies in this country do have structured help and need to use it if in trouble. Men need to not hit them too, but if they do there is help ladies, I am of the belief most blokes in this country are not wife beaters and don't like wife beaters.

This would remove the problem for the police.

Seems to me your biggest beef was the lies, not the violence.

 

[born an eel]

Mate, there is no debate. The bloke was found NOT GUILTY and his conviction quashed. In other words, the COURT accepted his evidence given on OATH.
If he or she were telling lies under oath, they are guilty of perjury.
What else is there to debate...Just because you don't agree with the judicial system, doesn't mean it is wrong.
I would love to read what Bigfella has to say about this case, and the judicial system.
Again, I wish to state, I am not a fan of Greg Bird....

one court accepted his evidence, doesn't have to be the end of criminal proceedings.

If district courts are so infallible why do we have the court of criminal appeal?

as such a defender of the justice system you will be fully aware that the prosecution can appeal if they so desire.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Court of Criminal Appeal deals exclusively with appeals rising from criminal trials. Appeals are normally heard by three judges or, in some sentence appeals where there is no issue of principle, two Judges. In some cases dealing with very important principles of law, a full bench of five or more judges will sit.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Court of Appeal and the Court of Criminal Appeal can review questions of law and overturn findings of fact. They can also reduce or increase penalties or awards of damages or gaol sentences.[/FONT]

I personally don't think they should appeal but go down the track of hindering a police investigation / trying to pervert the course of justice route.

 

[The Colonel]

I will agree here Fruit man.

They do get blamed when they let it be and the girl ends up hurt again.

This is a wider problem, which to be frank should not happen in this country. In Iran and other places the woman has no choice, but here they bloody well do, there are shelters etc, hell in many cases I am sure a neighbour would help.

I know easier said than done, but really the ladies in this country do have structured help and need to use it if in trouble. Men need to not hit them too, but if they do there is help ladies, I am of the belief most blokes in this country are not wife beaters and don't like wife beaters.

This would remove the problem for the police.

Seems to me your biggest beef was the lies, not the violence.

Growing up I saw my share of abuse..... physical and mental. Definitely not a fan in anyway shape or form of violence towards women or anyone for that matter. The lies and the violence take an even weight..... maybe I've heard the old excuses about walking in to a door or falling down some stairs a bit too often for my own liking.

Whether it be bad advice, their own volition or because the moon was in the wrong sector I don't know but they've come out with a bad smell around them even if they are not guilty......

 

[Mr Angry]

I don't know but they've come out with a bad smell around them even if they are not guilty......

For sure, but ACA or TT will pay them heaps to tell their side.....talk about bad smells.

 

[parra pete]

one court accepted his evidence, doesn't have to be the end of criminal proceedings.

If district courts are so infallible why do we have the court of criminal appeal?

as such a defender of the justice system you will be fully aware that the prosecution can appeal if they so desire.



I personally don't think they should appeal but go down the track of hindering a police investigation / trying to pervert the course of justice route.

AND if there is an appeal, and the decision to overturn the Not Guilty is again overturned, then I will accept that decision. Not being part of the case, not hearing any of the evidence, I just have to accept the fact that highly qualified Judge (Justice Michael Finnane) overturned the decision of a magistrate (Magistrate Roger Clisdell)
Fresh evidence

[I]Neither had given evidence on legal advice at the earlier hearing, but with a jail term hanging over Bird's head, both were allowed to offer fresh evidence, with Judge Finnane ruling that it was in the interests of justice.

Judge Finnane said Milligan was forthright, intelligent, made up her own mind, and exhibited no signs of a person who was a victim of domestic violence.

He said if anyone was the dominant party in the relationship it seemed to be Ms Milligan, and he believed both accounts of that night that it was indeed an accident, that she had been injured after she lunged at him, and that Bird grabbed her wrist in self-defence.

Neither Bird nor Ms Milligan could offer an explanation as to exactly how the glass broke, but the judge did offer a couple of scenarios.

He said perhaps Bird's arm forced Ms Milligan's arm back into her face, perhaps when she withdrew her arm that caused the glass to break.

Judge Finnane found whatever happened was quick, and that Bird was clearly attempting to avoid domestic violence, and he did not strike at her or shout at her.

The judge described the pair's attempt to blame Mr Watson for the incident as a foolish and reckless thing to do.

Bird was also facing a charge of making an accusation intending for a person to be investigated, knowing that the other person was not guilty of the offence. The judge also set that aside.

Judge Finnane said the Crown failed to prove that Bird had intended for Mr Watson to be investigated.

The decision opens the way for Bird to return to Australian rugby league.

He is currently playing for the Catalans Dragons in France, but that contract is about to expire.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/25/2753581.htm?site=local[/I]

 

[The Colonel]

For sure, but ACA or TT will pay them heaps to tell their side.....talk about bad smells.

Womans Day, Womans Weekly, New Idea.... they'll all get a run, no doubt so will the likes of Inglis and Stewart.

 

[Suitman]

What's happening with the Stewart case?

Suity

 

[born an eel]

interesting reading Pete especially

Neither Bird nor Ms Milligan could offer an explanation as to exactly how the glass broke, but the judge did offer a couple of scenarios.

interesting that they both didn't give an explanation what actually happened but left it up to the judge to, got to love those facts.

 

[Suitman]

Neither Bird nor Ms Milligan could offer an explanation as to exactly how the glass broke,

And people wonder why others are sceptical???

Suity

 

[parra pete]

Well, how did it break? They were there..if they don't know, I'm sure you or I wouldn't know.
Do you think they lied under oath saying they " couldn't offer an explanation"..

 

[sportive cupid]

Well, how did it break? They were there..if they don't know, I'm sure you or I wouldn't know.
Do you think they lied under oath saying they " couldn't offer an explanation"..

Oh I doubt they did that:lol:

 

[Suitman]

Well, how did it break? They were there..if they don't know, I'm sure you or I wouldn't know.

You're an idiot.

Suity

 

[lingard]

A court of law said he didn't....the conviction was quashed.. That was the Judge's opinion. He is the bloke who heard all the evidence presented, and made his decision on that, so, in the end, it doesn't matter what you, me or anyone else thinks...and I can't believe David Gallop is threatening action against Clubs that sign him. Sounds like victimisation to me.
I'm definitely no fan of Bird, but the bloke has been through hell since the incident. He always said he would be cleared - and he was in Court...end of section.

I think all he said was that any club who wants to sign Gred Bird will have to demonstrate a plan on how to 'manage' him (whatever that means). Still, I agree with you - if Bird is legally innocent, what is there to manage? The NRL, then, has no right whatsoever to act in a manner that suggests that he was guilty (which this does). By the way, I think he did it. But I think Lindy Chamberlain did it too, so what do I know?

 

[Suitman]

- if Bird is legally innocent, what is there to manage? The NRL, then, has no right whatsoever to act in a manner that suggests that he was guilty

The lies perhaps?
The attempt to have a mate take the wrap?
The guy is a snake, and I don't blame the NRL for wanting to wash their hands of him.

Suity

 

[Bazal]

Seeing as my previous post clearly wasn't diplomatically worded enough and has been whisked into the ether, I'll simply say I agree with Suity on this matter, both with his opinion regarding Bird and his opinion regarding pete

 

[TheParraboy]

Ive had over zealous women come at me at times, im greatfull they were holding plastic cups at the time and I have maintained my reasonable looks