O/T Bird to walk free as conviction quashed

[Maroubra Eel]

I agree with Casper the Ghost. Makes slot of sense.

 

[strider]

i don't know if i agree with casper - his posts are too long to bother reading :lol:

 

[parra pete]

Milligan never originally made a statement...how can she have been the one who falsely accused the flatmate? Also, this;


http://www.nospam09.com/2008/08/25/greg-bird-police-assault-charges-over-glassing/

He's a liar, and you're a fool

A couple of things I am NOT...I am not stupid, and I am not a fool..so let's just clear that up, OK. I might be pig headed BUT I am not stupid, and I am not a fool.

By calling me stupid and a fool, you are also calling Justice Finnane stupid and a fool. He had ALL the facts in front of him at the Appeal..and he quashed the conviction.

If you don't agree with him, tell him. AND write a letter to the newspapers (BTW they won't publish it) with your full name and address so you can be hit with a libel suit...

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Be no good taking a libel suit against me. I can barely afford the $80 to renew my football membership. It'd be like getting blood from a stone.

 

[born an eel]

A couple of things I am NOT...I am not stupid, and I am not a fool..so let's just clear that up, OK. I might be pig headed BUT I am not stupid, and I am not a fool.

By calling me stupid and a fool, you are also calling Justice Finnane stupid and a fool. He had ALL the facts in front of him at the Appeal..and he quashed the conviction.

If you don't agree with him, tell him. AND write a letter to the newspapers (BTW they won't publish it) with your full name and address so you can be hit with a libel suit...

he had a version of events that they told him this time and the rest he had to guess what may have happened. What the facts are is something that will not be known.

 

[parra pete]

So in other words, you and your mates know better than the Judge who was in charge of the Appeal? - and Bird's legal team
Why can't you accept the fact that BY LAW he was found NOT GUILTY. That is the fact, irrespective of how you feel about it.
I have no particular liking of Greg Bird, either as a footballer or as a person (not that I know him).
BUT I do think that if he has been found NOT GUILTY, he should be allowed to get on with his life without vilification.

 

[Bazal]

A couple of things I am NOT...I am not stupid, and I am not a fool..so let's just clear that up, OK. I might be pig headed BUT I am not stupid, and I am not a fool.

By calling me stupid and a fool, you are also calling Justice Finnane stupid and a fool. He had ALL the facts in front of him at the Appeal..and he quashed the conviction.

If you don't agree with him, tell him. AND write a letter to the newspapers (BTW they won't publish it) with your full name and address so you can be hit with a libel suit...

No, pete, I am not calling the Justice a stupid fool. I am calling you a stupid fool and you, typically, are making a song and dance diversionary argument. I notice you have no answer to the quote I posted providing evidence that Bird is a liar, so I will take that avoidance as a concession on your part. I would also suggest that you take the time to actually understand what libel/slander is...and that personal opinion is not considered libelous...Wikipedia is not, generally, an overly reliable source but I have to get back to work so I thought I'd start you off with something easy. Simple things for obviously simple minds and all that.

Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel#Slander_and_libel

Of course, if I was to make outrageous statements regarding Birds guilt on here then the site is open to lawsuits, and that is why these statements get deleted. But my personal opinion does not open me up to libel suits anymore than a Catholic can sue a Muslim for not believing in the same god...You'd think a so called man of the press would know this kind of thing...

he had a version of events that they told him this time and the rest he had to guess what may have happened. What the facts are is something that will not be known.

Exactly.

As you said yourself pete, the verdict is the judges opinion based on the evidence given to him (or her)...it's no different to the opinions on here to the contrary. The only people who will ever really know what happened are Bird and Milligan, everything else is conjecture based on interpretation of evidence. My interpretation (and many others, it seems) is that Bird is a liar and a scumbag. Deal with it.

 

[parra pete]

No, pete, I am not calling the Justice a stupid fool. I am calling you a stupid fool and you, typically, are making a song and dance diversionary argument. I notice you have no answer to the quote I posted providing evidence that Bird is a liar, so I will take that avoidance as a concession on your part. I would also suggest that you take the time to actually understand what libel/slander is...and that personal opinion is not considered libelous...Wikipedia is not, generally, an overly reliable source but I have to get back to work so I thought I'd start you off with something easy. Simple things for obviously simple minds and all that.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel#Slander_and_libel

Of course, if I was to make outrageous statements regarding Birds guilt on here then the site is open to lawsuits, and that is why these statements get deleted. But my personal opinion does not open me up to libel suits anymore than a Catholic can sue a Muslim for not believing in the same god...You'd think a so called man of the press would know this kind of thing...




Exactly.

As you said yourself pete, the verdict is the judges opinion based on the evidence given to him (or her)...it's no different to the opinions on here to the contrary. The only people who will ever really know what happened are Bird and Milligan, everything else is conjecture based on interpretation of evidence. My interpretation (and many others, it seems) is that Bird is a liar and a scumbag. Deal with it.

A not guilty scumbag. If you know he is a liar, front him personally and tell him that..
http://www.nospam09.com/2008/08/25/greg-bird-police-assault-charges-over-glassing/
Apparently Bird then asked Mr Watson over the phone: “How do you feel about that?”

 

[born an eel]

Brent Watson family wants apology from Greg Bird, Katie Milligan

By Brent Read
The Australian
November 27, 2009 12:00am

Greg Bird and Katie Milligan leave court this week / File

• Brent Watson innocent victim of spat
• No apology so far from Bird, Milligan
• Promising golfing career suffered

THE courts have cleared Greg Bird but forgiveness remains in short supply in the family home of Brent Watson.

Only 24 hours after Bird had a reckless wounding conviction quashed, Watson's father, Mick, questioned why no public apology had been issued to his son, The Australian reports.

Brent Watson was the innocent victim of the high-profile spat last year involving Bird and his girlfriend, Katie Milligan, which led to the former being charged by police and the latter suffering cuts to her face and a fractured eye socket.

In a state of panic, the pair concocted a story to blame Watson - then Bird's housemate - despite the fact he wasn't even home at the time.
His plans to become a professional golfer suffered immeasurably.





"I would have thought that a public apology to Brent from both Katie and Greg would have been appropriate," Mick Watson said yesterday.

His son decided to take a break from golf six months ago, in part because of the attention brought on by the Bird case.

Only last month did he decide to try again, making a return to competitive amateur golf.

"I reckon it hurt him pretty bad," former NSW Colts teammate Brendan Smith said.
Read more abour Brent Watson, Greg Bird and Katie Milligan at The Australian

 

[Bigfella]

I think the biggest issue about all this is that, if Bird is cleared to play NRL, Cronulla should have first option of restoring the balance of his contract as it stood at the time of termination.

It is grossly unfair that they were pressured to take punitive action against a guy who when cleared, will be snapped up by rival clubs (and could turn them into a premiership winning side by his addition).

It may well be that aspects of his conduct not relating to the subject of the charges still means his contract will not be registered. But if he is, why do Cronulla pay the penalty?

 

[born an eel]

at the time cronulla said it wasn't so much the charges but the way he handled it with the club. He was dishonest with them and wouldn't co-operate with their investigation into it.

 

[parra pete]

I think the biggest issue about all this is that, if Bird is cleared to play NRL, Cronulla should have first option of restoring the balance of his contract as it stood at the time of termination.

It is grossly unfair that they were pressured to take punitive action against a guy who when cleared, will be snapped up by rival clubs (and could turn them into a premiership winning side by his addition).

It may well be that aspects of his conduct not relating to the subject of the charges still means his contract will not be registered. But if he is, why do Cronulla pay the penalty?

Good post, as usual, Bigfella

 

[Casper The Ghost]

i don't know if i agree with casper - his posts are too long to bother reading :lol:

The information found in some of Casper's posts exist for whom it exist.

Casper often operates outside the square.

It's what you/we don't know that is being used against you/us.

We grow out of what we don't know.

With information we already know we can become just like goldfish in a bowl, swimming around and around and around the same old ground.

I always prefer to stick my head well above the establishment fog of information to get a clear wide-view of reality rather than just accepting establishment information designed to tell me how to think and how to feel and why I should act on (put my energy/power of creation into) such information.

Casper's information will not resonate for those whose brains are firmly buried in the sand and who like to accept the establishment information being dished up to them since childhood without question.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Well said Casper.

 

[strider]

The information found in some of Casper's posts exist for whom it exist.

Casper often operates outside the square.

It's what you/we don't know that is being used against you/us.

We grow out of what we don't know.

With information we already know we can become just like goldfish in a bowl, swimming around and around and around the same old ground.

I always prefer to stick my head well above the establishment fog of information to get a clear wide-view of reality rather than just accepting establishment information designed to tell me how to think and how to feel and why I should act on (put my energy/power of creation into) such information.

Casper's information will not resonate for those whose brains are firmly buried in the sand and who like to accept the establishment information being dished up to them since childhood without question.

you see .... i managed to get to about "goldfish" this time .... then :| ....

:lol:

 

[lingard]

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!

It does sound odd, but in my line of work I have seen people do this a number of times. Even to the extent of having very black eyes and bruises. So it is possible that he is telling the truth about this.

 

[lingard]

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

I think the guy is a snake too. But if he is found to be NOT GUILTY in a court of LAW; then what LEGAL right do the NRL have to sanction him?
Now the other charge - of falsely accusing his mate - has not been heard yet. If he is found guilty of that (or any other charges), then the NRL may have some grounds.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

A not guilty scumbag. If you know he is a liar, front him personally and tell him that..
http://www.nospam09.com/2008/08/25/greg-bird-police-assault-charges-over-glassing/
Apparently Bird then asked Mr Watson over the phone: “How do you feel about that?”

i guess OJ was innocent too...

 

[lingard]

I assume the NRL are concerned about the re-occurring issues with him - this wasn't a one off ... and as i've said earlier, just cos the judgement is not guilty, he was still involved in a brawl with his chick where she got injured and they tried to tell fibs about it to cover it up - thats still an issue

Well, yes; but if his version of events is correct - and the court seems to be saying it is - then they were having a drink in a flat and she became hysterical, attacked him with a glass, and he defended himself. Hardly a brawl. I`m not trying to defend him in any way; just wondering where the NRL stand LEGALLY in terms of imposing sanctions on him IF he`s been found not guilty in a court of law. Morally, yes. But LEGALLY?

 

[bartman]

Legally Bird's former employer Cronulla, as a club within the umbrella of the NRL, can express concern at how Bird (mis)handled his contractual obligations to his employer. Bird failed to keep his employer in the loop with details relating to an investigation relating to a criminal charge that had an impact on the nature of his employment. I believe it was also claimed by the club CEO at the time that Bird had straight out lied to them?

That alone is enough for the NRL to rightly take issue with the re-registration of a player to be employed with another club that comes under their umbrella. It's not about the court case/appeal/verdict... it's about how Bird hanadled himself as an employee through this. Which in anyone's words must be poorly at best, and the NRL is right to be closely involved in the registration of his next NRL contract?

He is a legally free man, but personally I hope the grub and his manager take the money on offer in France... I'm glad to see his ex-mate/flatmate's father highlighting Bird's hypocrisy and his now acknowledged lies, which surely must amount to a charge of obstructing police or similar?