Witness: she was enjoying everything

[DJ1]

Not sure why, but the entire thread with these articles appears to have been deleted

Witness: she was enjoying everything

By PAUL KENT

April 29, 2004

A VERSION of events that helped to clear the Bulldogs over rape allegations in Coffs Harbour can be revealed in full for the first time.


The most damning evidence were witness statements that only one player was engaged in a sexual act at the pool of Coffs Harbour's Pacific Bay Resort, not six as had been alleged.

While police confirmed they were looking for a "seventh player" during the investigation – giving rise to the belief that six were involved in the incident at the pool – witnesses were adamant only one player was engaging in sexual activity at the pool.


"Before you actually walked into the enclosed area, I could see into the pool and I saw two people in the pool over in the northeastern corner of the pool. They were actually in the act of sex," a resort worker told Bulldogs officials.


"There was a girl in the water with her back towards me and there was a fellow sitting on the edge of the pool.


"When I walked in, I could see what they were doing so I deliberately let the gate shut loudly to warn them I was there.


"When that happened the girl sought [sic] of rose up out of the water and she pivoted around beside the bloke and just sat there alongside him.


"I could see that she had a white bra on and I'm not sure but she could have been nude or fawn slacks but skin toned."



The Bulldogs believe the incident began at The Plantation Hotel when the woman approached several players and propositioned them.


She was rejected and later approached a club bouncer saying she had been harassed by some players.


However the bouncer challenged her story, saying he had been watching her and that the players had done nothing wrong.


An internal investigation by the club and another by the NRL cleared the players of any wrongdoing while at the hotel, despite several accusations of drunken behaviour being made.


However, later the woman left the hotel with a player and returned to the resort.


Before this happened she was reportedly involved in an incident with a player outside the hotel, where she allegedly told one player she would: "f. . . him."


She then returned to the resort with the first player.


Another witness – another resort worker on duty that night – claimed to have been stopped by the woman, who was with the player, to ask the direction to the beach.


He said he later saw the woman in the company of two other players at the pool.


This sighting is believed to have occurred after the sexual activity at the pool spotted by the other worker when the Bulldogs say the player asked the woman if she wanted money for a cab fare home.


The player told the club the woman said no and remained in the pool.


"I looked across and saw the girl swimming in the pool breast stroke; she was virtually in the one spot; she looked like she was enjoying everything," the worker said.


"There was nothing unusual about her . . . I also saw [the two different players], or I'm almost sure that they were the same two guys I had seen a short time ago, laying on banana chairs alongside the pool.


"They were laying back like so – arms behind head laying on their backs; it was quite mild."


The Bulldogs say the woman later that morning knocked on the door of two hotel rooms occupied by players.


She was told to "f. . . off".


The next the Bulldogs heard about the woman, she had been found in a distressed state claiming to have been gang raped.


Bulldogs coach Steve Folkes said yesterday:



"I have had nothing to say because there was a police investigation going on and we were hopeful that the police would basically discover what we have told them, which they did."


The Bulldogs believe the woman's evidence began to fall apart when police asked her to identify the six players involved.


The club said this was because there were not six players involved and that she randomly selected players when police showed her pictures of players in the NRL media guide.


This was supported by the fact several of the identified players had ironclad alibis.

Telegraph

 

[DJ1]

'Something happened' - Jason Breton interview


April 29, 2004





JASON BRETON: As we advised yesterday the Director of Public Prosecutions advice has assisted us in making the decision at Coffs Harbour that no charges would be laid against any player or official from the Bulldogs organisation. That's still our case today and we're here to answer questions in relation to that advice, the decision we made at Coffs Harbour and some questions in relation to the investigation.

We are drawn a little bit on some legal issues so I won't be answering questions in relation to that, but for the most part we can talk about the investigation freely.

QUESTION: You say there's insufficient evidence (inaudible) for the rape charges?

JASON BRETON: There's insufficient evidence to prefer a charge against any player or official from the Bulldogs organisation. That is the line. It's simply that based on a substantial brief of evidence we provided to the director on all likelihood the changes of prosecution were low. They gave us that advice. We listened to that advice and we spoke to the investigation team. We looked at the pros and cons in that, told the family, and then made our decision yesterday.

QUESTION: Why were the chances of prosecution low?

JASON BRETON: Because the evidence wasn't sufficient for us to warrant preferring a charge.

QUESTION: Was there any evidence of rape physically?

JASON BRETON: Yes.

QUESTION: Physical evidence?

JASON BRETON: It's always hard to talk about evidence of rape because if rape is an offence sexual intercourse isn't, but the evidence can be the same.

QUESTION: You just said through the evidence that you that that persuaded you to continue and you indicated at your last press conference, with full vigour, (inaudible) to really try to track down and substantiate- -

JASON BRETON: Probably the easiest way is to take you to the evidence that didn't and the thing is there that there were substantial holes in some witness accounts, there were some alibis which when discovered were checked out and became evidence against the original version, there were some time lines that didn't match up and there were some other minor issues that just didn't fit what the original complaint was. And this can happen in cases of serious sexual assault or any serious offence when there's trauma involved because victims will often make a complaint very soon after an offence and trauma does play a part, so police have to look at that in its full- -

QUESTION: - -told us that the young woman had stitches as a result of some injury.

JASON BRETON: That's total fabrication.

QUESTION: Was there any physical evidence that she was hurt at some stage by a Bulldog player?

JASON BRETON: There was evidence consistent with her version as of the date of complaint, that is physical evidence consistent with her version. What we have to consider as police investigators is up until three days prior to the brief being handed to the DPP we were working on the versions of a traumatised victim and some witnesses around and about the Pacific Bay resort.

It wasn't until we had full and conclusive versions and statements from the players involved that we could test that evidence. So we talk about a 10 week investigation but in fact the minute we got those versions from the players within 72 hours it was in a box at Castlereagh Street.

QUESTION: Jason, what happens if you now believe that there's any evidence that the girl fabricated?

JASON BRETON: I didn't say that, Steve.

QUESTION: What if there is evidence that the girl fabricated the story?

JASON BRETON: We're not here to- -

QUESTION: The central allegation was six Bulldog players in broad daylight at the pool. If there's evidence that there is a public mischief what does your strike force- -

JASON BRETON: Do you want me to answer a hypothetical question, Steve? You're talking about your hypothesise.

QUESTION: Was there a rape or not?

JASON BRETON: We investigated a sexual assault. We worked for 10 weeks looking at the versions of all the people concerned, including the woman at Coffs Harbour and the people at the Pacific Bay and the players and officials from the Bulldogs organisation.

UNIDENTIFIED: Perhaps do one at a time, folks.

JASON BRETON: Thanks, Chris.

QUESTION: Malcolm Noad says that the Bulldogs have been vindicated, what do you say?

JASON BRETON: Well, Malcolm Noad can say what he believes to be the facts. I mean that's not for us to comment. He's in charge of an organisation and he's allowed to make comment about his players. I can only make comment about the police investigation and the way it was conducted.

QUESTION: He also said: "Let's believe nothing happened in Coffs Harbour."

JASON BRETON: That's what he said.

QUESTION: Do you believe something happened in Coffs Harbour?

JASON BRETON: Absolutely. That's why for 10 weeks we worked at almost 18 hours a day for 10 weeks. The detectives from Coffs Harbour and from State Crime Command worked vigorously to work on finding out the truth behind this matter. Ultimately we're seekers of truth and we get a version from an alleged victim of a sexual assault and we're always going to vigorously investigate that until we can prove or disprove the claims. In this instance what we did, we sought the advice of the director in relation to the sufficiency of that evidence.

QUESTION: So you stand by your original statement that this woman was the victim of a vicious sexual assault?

JASON BRETON: What I'm saying is that there was - even today there's evidence that could substantiate that. What the director is saying and the advice I've taken is that it's not sufficient to prefer charges. This happens daily in a lot of different offences with a lot of different people around Sydney. The only difference is the profile of the alleged offenders in this case.

QUESTION: But there is evidence that could substantiate that?

JASON BRETON: Not enough evidence.

QUESTION: If the press reports today are to be believed this woman could not identify any of those six players, identify is key to the charge of rape.

JASON BRETON: There's a lot of things that are key to the charge of rape.

QUESTION: Identify? What went through your mind when you found out she could not identify any of those six players?

JASON BRETON: Who said that?

QUESTION: I said press reports- -

JASON BRETON: There's been - you're the media, you can believe your press reports. But the fact - she identified some players, she identified some players during the official identification process that were consistent with her original version.

QUESTION: (inaudible)

JASON BRETON: No.

QUESTION: What do you say about the credibility of the witness?

JASON BRETON: It's not for the police investigators to judge the credibility of a witness. I mean some witnesses are tested in court in relation to their evidence, some aren't, this one won't be. But it's a dangerous message to send to any young women or male people in Sydney that the police won't vigorously investigate your claims if you're the alleged victim of a sexual assault. We're always going to do that, we're always going to do it to the best of our ability.

And in this case every single procedure - from re-creations to walk-throughs, to DNA, to player interviews, to photographs, to videos, to identification procedures - was conducted. There was nothing, no stone left unturned in this investigation, and to that effect the director has complimented the police on the thoroughness of the investigation.

QUESTION: Would you have done anything differently?

JASON BRETON: No.

QUESTION: Jason, the Police Incident Report said that the girl was anally, vaginaly and orally assaulted without her consent, do you now still believe that?

JASON BRETON: The Police Incident Report isn't a fact sheet and it isn't evidence.

QUESTION: OK, but that's the subject of an internal affairs inquiry at the moment, can you tell me- -

JASON BRETON: I might - you might want to ask- -

UNIDENTIFIED POLICE OFFICER: That is still ongoing and it's improper of me to comment any further. But I can confirm there is an internal investigation underway.

QUESTION: And what about the other inquiry in relation to the girl, the blackmail call, a mystery caller saying that this can all be sorted out for $25,000? The club has confirmed with me that there is an investigation into that and they traced the call. Can you tell me what's happened?

UNIDENTIFIED POLICE OFFICER: There's no dispute that a call was made by the NRL to the Bulldogs. The call is unable to be traced. That was vigorously investigated through call charge records. We believe we know the area the call came from.

QUESTION: Can you say where that is?

UNIDENTIFIED POLICE OFFICER: No, but it's certainly nowhere near where the victim was and that's been fully investigated and ruled out.

QUESTION: Jason, the Bulldogs say they now want the results of the DNA tests, are you going to provide them to them and what do those DNA tests show?

JASON BRETON: Well, the first answer is no, and they'll probably be destroyed in due course now.

QUESTION: So you're not going to provide any results to them?

JASON BRETON: No. That's not a course of action we take in any investigation.

QUESTION: Is the case closed now?

JASON BRETON: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: In Victoria a victim can appeal to the DPP to reconsider with a view to charges to be laid, is that possible in New South Wales?

JASON BRETON: It's true here as well, yes.

QUESTION: What happened to the drug matter that you thought was serious enough that you referred it to the Drug Squad? What's happened to that.

UNIDENTIFIED POLICE OFFICER: I'll take that one. There was a minor issue arose in relation to a drug matter. It was a very low level matter and I referred it to the local area command where the person resides for investigation at a local level. But emphasis it's a very low level issue, there's no dealing alleged, just a minor usage matter.

QUESTION: So, Jason Breton, why did you refer it to the Drug Squad (inaudible)

JASON BRETON: Mr Sponberg(*) just answered that question.

QUESTION: So it's a- -

JASON BRETON: Mr Sponberg just answered that. You want to ask him again?

QUESTION: Jason, did the Bulldogs cooperate with you to your satisfaction?

JASON BRETON: Yes. I mean it's the inherent right of any person not to say anything to the police. Right from the very start the Bulldogs organisation as a whole has assisted the police with their inquiry, there's no doubt about that. It's not for me to comment or speculate on why players don't, or any person in this State when there's serious allegations levelled against them talk to- -

QUESTION: Do you still stick to your term "scant details" originally when you told the media that- -

JASON BRETON: Can I finish that one, Steve?

QUESTION: - -details were scant.

JASON BRETON: They were scant. The first version of the players were scant. Some of those statements that were offered up after their legal advice were three lines. If you work in a major investigation for 10 weeks on three lines it's very difficult. So until you get a version that exculpates that person or other players or creates an alibi you can't test it against what happens or the statement of the original victim, and it's an important thing to consider because only three days after the interviews when we knocked on the doors in Sydney and the Orange interviews, less than 72 hours after we were carrying a box into the DPP and that's why it took so long

Telegraph

 

[DJ1]

Hounded dogs


April 29, 2004

Bulldogs coach Steve Folkes has been unable to speak his mind on the turmoil surrounding the club. But yesterday he answered the hard questions. PAUL KENT reports:


STEVE Folkes squared off yesterday, finally and typically not missing.
For a small moment the Bulldogs coach had seen the break in the clouds, then stood up and fought for his club as it threatened to again cover over in the afternoon.


Folkes awoke yesterday to the first day of the news that the investigation had been canned.


Later, though, the head of the police taskforce held a press conference and among his more salacious comments he said he still believed there was evidence suggesting a rape had occurred.


Insiders at the Bulldogs believe it was a cheap shot, a desperate attempt to save face after months of talking up the case against the Bulldogs had finally fallen flat.


It lit the fuse.


Later, while chief executive Malcolm Noad was talking to the wider press outside, Folkes was in his office and had had enough.


He said he believed this interview was heading towards another kick in the guts for the club and so he stood and walked, switching off the tape recorder on the way past.


Long pause . . . on resumption, Folkes began to explain the frustrations that have been curdling within his club as they awoke each morning to fresh details that, he said, contained only small parts of truth.


Armed with that, and with the eventual police findings, the Bulldogs believe the whole handling of the rape allegations against them have been appalling – and Folkes even conceded it was handled poorly by themselves in the early stages.


"The players are feeling really let down by the system," Folkes said.


"I think David Gallop should have taken a leaf out of the AFL CEO's book [Andrew Demetriou] and handled it in a similar fashion.


"I think he inflamed the situation by speaking on penalty before the police had almost even begun the investigation."


Folkes said he understood a doubt remains that his players have "got away with it", saying: "I understand the perception out there.


"They keep saying the six accused, the six accused players.


"It is a joke. It really is a joke."


Witness statements, which were accepted by police, revealed that only one player was involved with the woman on the morning in question.


A confusion remains not only because the woman alleged she was raped by six players on the morning in question, but also because the club last night began internal investigations after six players admitted to consensual sex with the same woman on the previous Wednesday.


Folkes said such incidents, wrongs that failed to be corrected, were drip-fed almost daily since the initial rape allegation was raised in February.


"Every day there was something new," he said.


"Drug scandal, the seventh player . . . it would come out and we never had an opportunity to get past the issue before the next one came out.


"We never got a chance to heal from one issue to the next and the accumulative effect of it was pretty severe, I guess."


Players were harassed almost daily as the allegations continued to simmer and that, he said, coupled with the players' innocence, was among the toughest moments to deal with.


"You know they're not guilty of anything yet they have been hounded," Folkes said of his players.


"I know it has happened, I don't want to be specific, but they have been barred from going into nightclubs, into restaurants, simply because of these allegations.


"I understand that they were serious accusations but they were accusations and they still are accusations now that they have been proven not true.


"We have been basically confronted with it every day we come to training for the last eight weeks in some form or another.


"Even after the decision today."


FOLKES defended the incidents the NRL saw fit to fine the club over last night, the Bulldogs stung for $150,000 with a further $350,000 amount remaining suspended.


On those incidents, Folkes said:


Players being late for the police interviews: "If you want to be factual, there was no time.


"They were at the barristers at 9am where they were supposed to be and the police were aware they were coming after that."


On the players' code of dress: "There were some guys that were dressed inappropriately and they have been dealt with by the club."


On anonymous player allegations claiming the club has a gang-bang culture: "I have got 24 players who are prepared to sign stat decs to say they didn't say that."


On Matt Utai kicking a ball at assembled journalists: "The press, you guys, have made something out of that when there was certainly no malice in it."


Folkes believes the club will not suffer long-term damage as a result of the allegations.


"Since the investigation started I think we have got two or three new sponsors, our brand is still pretty strong, although I guess you could say it has been damaged.


"But we still sell more football jumpers than any other team in the competition. Our merchandise accounts for about 16 per cent of the NRL merchandise.


"There are plenty of people who have seen through those accusations and it hasn't worried them too much.


"I hope we can get past it, there is nothing more that we can control.


"As players we need to get on with what we can control."

Telegraph

 

[DJ1]

Victim resists media frenzy
By Emma-Kate Symons
April 29, 2004

THE 20-year-old woman at the centre of the Bulldogs gang-rape accusations yesterday spurned frenzied attempts by broadcast and print media outlets to secure an exclusive interview.

Despite the lure of celebrity agents including Harry M. Miller and Max Markson offering to represent her and secure lucrative deals potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, the woman as of last night had agreed to no offers to tell her side of the story.

Half a dozen media crews staked out her family home in Coffs Harbour. However, it is believed the woman had fled town with her parents to escape the spotlight.

Agents and current affairs programs including 60 Minutes, A Current Affair and Today Tonight are believed to have lodged formal requests to interview the woman, through family and friends.

Talkback radio callers yesterday fiercely debated whether the woman should accept money for her story, as swimmer Craig Stevens did when he revealed on Seven's Today Tonight, for $60,000 and a job, that he would not compete in the Olympic 400m freestyle, allowing Ian Thorpe to swim the event in Athens.

The editor of The Daily Telegraph in Sydney, Campbell Reid, told ABC radio it would be in the woman's best interests to tell her story, without accepting payment, in order to retain her credibility.

Nine news and current affairs spokesman David Hurley said A Current Affair and 60 Minutes were still trying to convince the woman it was in her interests to offer her version of events.

But Mr Hurley said: "It's not my understanding that there's been any offers. There's been importuning through family, friends and others.

"But it doesn't seem there's been a change of heart. She's given no indication she's going to talk. But you never say never. Plainly, we're as keen as anyone to tell this story."

News

 

[ozbash]

apologies dj1.
i jumped the gun thinking this was going to be the same sort of thread as the original.i should read these threads more carefully.

ozbash

 

[Fibroman]

Sometimes you need to read into things a bit rather than taking them on face value.

The mere fact that a person makes an allegation that something occurred, as far as a brief of evidence is concerned, is evidence that the act occurred.

A person can be involved in a motor vehicle accident, and sustain injuries that are CONSISTENT with an assault.

When Breton says that the alleged victim had injuries consistent with being raped, and there was evidence of a rape, could actually mean that she sustained injuries during consentual sex, and her actual complaint along with those injuries were the ' evidence' that a rape occurred.

 

[gaterooze]

That's a good assessment reading between the lines, fibro.

Look at it in reverse -- would the police say there was NO evidence of a rape? No, because that means that they never would have launched the investigation in the first place. But that evidence, as fibro pointed out, can be the same as consensual sex, and also includes the woman's initial complaint.

 

[RICHO]

There's still a lot of unanswered questions. Questions that we will never get answers to.

The "mud will stick", and the Bulldogs players will always be under scrutiny for this. That;s how life is.

High profile guys such as thes fella's should know better, and I'm sure that they all do after these events. They have to be responsible for their actions. Socially, morally and legally. No oone will put up with it anymore. The days of League boys picking up at the local club/pub and going home for a shag is basically over. Well, at least it should be.

 

[Raider_69]

But while it could be a result of consentual sex it could aslo be a result of rape
thats why im not willing to say guilty or innocent at this stage nor do i think i will be able to at any stage

 

[fillapop]

they will neva live this down no metter what happens

 

[DJ1]

Don't forget that simply the presence of semen can be evidence and having wet clothes can be consistent with the initial statement.

 

[anastabation]

I remember I used to hold raider_69 in high regard. At the old rleague he was an opposition favourite at the dogs section. I am confused as to why he is so hell bent on bringing down the club now given his personality back then.

 

[hrundi99]

I'm happy to believe the decision that's been made.

I believe in the theory of being innocent until proven guilty, and that's what I'm sticking to.

 

[DJ1]

apologies dj1.
i jumped the gun thinking this was going to be the same sort of thread as the original.i should read these threads more carefully.

ozbash

No probs oz

 

[Anonymous]

hrundi, the voice of reason.

 

[Anonymous]

No oone will put up with it anymore. The days of League boys picking up at the local club/pub and going home for a shag is basically over. Well, at least it should be.

You reckon??

Should the NRL make a new rule for all players which stipulates a minimum time that they must be in a relationship before having sex?

 

[wittyfan]

The days of League boys picking up at the local club/pub and going home for a shag is basically over. Well, at least it should be.

But if it's consensual, there's nothing wrong with that at all. Still, it's up to players and women to be careful and responsible about it.

 

[Rise Against]

I remember I used to hold raider_69 in high regard. At the old rleague he was an opposition favourite at the dogs section. I am confused as to why he is so hell bent on bringing down the club now given his personality back then.

Likewise :?:

 

[Shifty]

But while it could be a result of consentual sex it could aslo be a result of rape
thats why im not willing to say guilty or innocent at this stage nor do i think i will be able to at any stage

That's why statements like "where there's smoke there's fire" should be avoided where possible R69.

I realise you were probably referring to the fact that just because they may not have been guilty of rape that their actions have, in some way, contributed to them being exposed to these allegations.

If you make a broad generalisation when talking about such serious issues and emotions are high, it is very easy for assumptions to be made and your comments taken the wrong way.

This is where the media have caused a lot of undue stress in this matter. Even if no individual is held accountable, practices need to change.

 

[Fibroman]

I've never really been a fan of the Bulldogs, but I think the club was hard done by in a number of ways over the Coffs Harbour saga.

Instead of the media giving the Bulldogs and Rugby League a pizzling, why don't they look at the matter from another perspective. Why don't they put it back on the alleged victim, and offer a warning for young women not to put themselves in a position where things like this incident may occur.

I personally believe that in any ' date rape' situation, a portion of the blame needs to be attributed towards the girl if she had led a man on, particularly if one or both parties are intoxicated or affected by drugs.