Peponis hints at legal action if players cleared

[Shifty]

Lets face facts at the start of investigations, the evidence that was known had the dogs players all but guilty, the media reported it that way

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the media have known about the credibility of much of the evidence they presented for some time. I question why the chose to present this new information just before the DPP release their findings to police?

 

[MadDogMason]

Bulldogs Cleared!!!!!!!

 

[Moffo]

As i said in the other thread, certain media types from the SMH should fry over their reporting, and you know who they are

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[MadDogMason]

I sure hope so :twisted:

 

[Kaz]

I can't see the Dogs taking action over the media coverage.

They didn't name any players.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Kaz, the dogs lost over 1 million in sponsorship due to the medias reporting of the case. A good example would be Lord Jeffrey Archers defamation case in Britian

The case against Archer arose from a 1987 libel case he brought against the Daily Star newspaper after it alleged he had had sex with London prostitute Monica Coghlan.

After denying the encounter and winning his court case, Archer netted £500,000 in damages.

(although later it was found that he did indeed do it and sentenced to prison for 32 months for perjury)


Seeing our justice system is based on the British one, I can't see how the Bulldogs cannot sue for damages, the paper would have to show how they arrived at the *allegations* they printed in their papers, where the information came from, to show that they were indeed reporting the "facts" of the case at the time. I think they will have a hard time doing that when they seemed to be pulling the facts out of the arses.

 

[Moffo]

We have a lot to sue over, and I believe the club will be proceeding with some action in the next couple of weeks

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[Generalissimo Stalin]

the dogs would be better of suing the players for bringing all this on the club including recouping lost revenue- maybe the supporters can sue the club too in that case for emotional distress.

 

[PeterBrown]

This is a bloddy joke...let the matter go to rest, don't continue to drag it through the courts you idiots!

 

[Dogaholic]

This is a bloddy joke...let the matter go to rest, don't continue to drag it through the courts you idiots!

If they can sue, then why not? 1.5 million was lost in sponsership!

 

[OzDave]

Why would they sue - the police say there was evidence of a rape. The biggest problem is the weak bastard who witnessed his team mates but won't come forward. *edited*,
NRL officials and police were clearly unimpressed by the claim of the Bulldogs chief executive, Malcolm Noad, who said on Tuesday night: "Let's believe nothing happened in Coffs Harbour."
Maybe here is another manager should be shown the door. He's only been there 3 or 4 weeks and he's already deluding himself.

 

[Dogaholic]

Why would they sue - the police say there was evidence of a rape. The biggest problem is the weak bastard who witnessed his team mates but won't come forward. *edited*
NRL officials and police were clearly unimpressed by the claim of the Bulldogs chief executive, Malcolm Noad, who said on Tuesday night: "Let's believe nothing happened in Coffs Harbour."
Maybe here is another manager should be shown the door. He's only been there 3 or 4 weeks and he's already deluding himself.

How sure are you that this "witness" who didn't come foward is actually a Bulldog player? Because the media said so?

Sue the merkins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[OzDave]

No, the Detective in charge said he was.

 

[RB30DETT]

The detective also said he was the alledged victims confidant!, so automatically there goes his objectivity.

The evidence provided said that there had been sexual activity.

 

[Pensacola Q.C]

No, the Detective in charge said he was.

If the detective knew who he was then they could have gone ahead with charges and subpoead him. If not, then it's all heresay and means nothing.

 

[JK]

The attitude of the doomsayers stinks!

 

[ibeme]

[url]http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/03/1083436516473.html
[/url]

Bulldogs won't pursue woman in court
May 3, 2004 - 11:34AM

The Bulldogs will not be making a public mischief complaint against a woman who alleged she was raped by six members of the rugby league team, their lawyer said today.

Jim Young was responding to suggestions police may be obliged to charge the 20-year-old woman at the centre of the rape allegations with public mischief, if a complaint was made.

Asked whether the Bulldogs would be making any complaint Mr Young said: "Well no, certainly not through the Bulldogs. If there is anything about public mischief, the police will be interested in that part of it anyway."

ABC radio reported today that a public mischief charge could be lodged against the woman at the centre of the rape allegation after police last week said there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with charges.

The ABC said it had documents which detailed the police investigation, showing the woman had consensual sex with five players three days before the alleged rape at the Pacific Bay Resort in Coffs Harbour on February 22.

It said medical evidence and photographs of the woman's body were inconsistent with the treatment she claimed to have received from a group of players.

Detective Chief Inspector Jason Breton, the officer in charge of the investigation, said he had no comment to make on the matter.

AAP

 

[DJ1]

Even the medical evidence refuted her claims.

The insufficient evidence for a charge is mounting up.