Today's Australian

[wittyfan]

] INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE .

Now it's pretty unheard of that John Howard and his boys would rape me. But they weren't cleared now were they? It is the exact same situation as the Bulldogs. Insufficient Evidence means there was not enough evidence to actually charge anyone, hence proving innocence. In the eyes of the law, The Bulldogs were exonerated from all charges. There was evidence that a rape may have occurred, but there was nothing linking the Bulldogs to the scene at the time of the incident.

According to Breton, the attack was "vicious" even though he conceded that the evidence for a rape and consensual sex can sometimes be the same. Make of that what you will.

Also, in Christine Jackman's excellent article in The Australian on the controversy several months ago, a witness said he saw the woman in the pool with three Canterbury players lounging by the pool. So there was some evidence to link players to the pool at the time frame, though of course not to the alleged incident.

]The female lied about many things, including her whereabouts the night before, why she went back to the hotel that night (Her best friend told the real reason and contradicted her statement). Bretton wanted to charge them, but Cowdery knew there was nothing on them and it would not hold up under CE in court.

What else did she lie about? The wallet I think the only she said that was incorrect.

 

[Cammo]

According to Breton, the attack was "vicious" even though he conceded that the evidence for a rape and consensual sex can sometimes be the same. Make of that what you will.

How does Breton know for a fact that it was an attack? Medical evidence and photos showed no sign of the injuries reported by the victim or by Breton in his press conferences. Thankfully it is that evidence that the DPP used in determining his verdict.

Also, in Christine Jackman's excellent article in The Australian on the controversy several months ago, a witness said he saw the woman in the pool with three Canterbury players lounging by the pool. So there was some evidence to link players to the pool at the time frame, though of course not to the alleged incident.

This above quote also puts holes in Breton's press conferences. Breton stated the he "knows" there was a 7th player who was witness to it. How can this be when there were no witness who saw the girl with more than 3 players at any one time in the pool area?

As for the gir lying, apparently she lied a number of times to the police over the way she was acting towards a few of the players on the night. It was a video taken from security of one of the hotels and the evidence given by a bouncer at the same place that caught her out on that lie.

What else she may have lied about who knows, but 2 lies to police in the same case unfortunatley does not leave her with a lot of credibility. If she was telling the truth about the whole incident she should not be lying about any of the things that happened.

Wether she did lie about more things or not, she shouldn't be lying to the police even once if everything happened as she said. It puts holes in her story and stuffs up any hope of prosecuting someone if they have done the wrong thing.

The reason people lie about things is to cover something up, so the question should be asked, what was she trying to prevent the police from knowing by lying about her actions on the night?

At the end of the day, no-one other than the people there will ever know for certain what happened. The evidence didn't exist to charge anyone with raping the woman and no Canterbury player was linked to any "attack" on the girl in question despite an intense investigation and DNA testing.

 

[wittyfan]

How does Breton know for a fact that it was an attack? Medical evidence and photos showed no sign of the injuries reported by the victim or by Breton in his press conferences. Thankfully it is that evidence that the DPP used in determining his verdict.

Breton came to that conclusion during the investigation:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/28/1083103516563.html

This above quote also puts holes in Breton's press conferences. Breton stated the he "knows" there was a 7th player who was witness to it. How can this be when there were no witness who saw the girl with more than 3 players at any one time in the pool area?

Breton claimed that one of the independent witnesses gave a sworn statement where they said that the 7th player actually saw the alleged assault.

 

[Cammo]

Breton came to that conclusion during the investigation:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/28/1083103516563.html

That doesn't make it fact.

Breton claimed that one of the independent witnesses gave a sworn statement where they said that the 7th player actually saw the alleged assault.

It was only one witness out of the many number that saw her with the players on that night. Hardly concrete evidence.



I don't for one minute think that the task force involved in the investigation didn't do everything possible to ensure the right outcome in this case. As is the case with a lot of investigations the officers involved have different opinions as to what went on. Breton's opinion is not the same as all the others that were in the task force, that doesn't mean any of them were any more right than the other.

The DPP carefully studied all the evidence that was available and decided that the players had no case to answer, just like the St Kilda and the Melbourne Storm players. If you think that the outcome was not satisfactory then he is the person who is responsible. The DPP knew that if the case went to court then the players would be found Not Guilty. He rightly decided not to waste taxpayer money on a court case where the result was so clear cut.

The problem is none of us will probably ever know for a fact what went on.

 

[wittyfan]

The problem is none of us will probably ever know for a fact what went on.

Exactly! All we can go on is what info has been provided.

 

[Cammo]

Which is also part of the problem as some of the "info" that has been provided is untrue.