Moved Thread Maj's trial - Majak found NOT GUILTY of three counts of rape

[DaveyBoy123]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but could there be any chance that we have already asked - or will ask - the AFL for a possible replacement rookie if Majak is locked up?

 

[Grogg]

Credible source then...

Hehe.

 

[nelroo]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but could there be any chance that we have already asked - or will ask - the AFL for a possible replacement rookie if Majak is locked up?

Looking more likely by the minute that there is more chance of my grandma being locked up than Maj. And she is in heaven..

 

[Zondor]

That story does not paint her as a credible witness.

How could the prosecution, knowing this, take this to court? Seriously...

At least now we know why the defence had no issue with this second rape allegation being made during this trial. Oh yeah IANAL. :stern look

 

[Benno_900]

#StandByMaj

 

[Moti]

It's been reported the girl didn't want to proceed with charges. You say "irresponsible", well you don't know what she has or hasn't gone through as a 15 year old girl at the time and subsequently, and her reasons why she didn't want charges laid. It may be as simple as she just wanted to forget the (alleged) incident and move on without reliving it, but has been unable to. Who knows?

Can you imagine a guilty verdict when an alleged victim refuses to give evidence? It would be thrown out the high majority of the time without the key persons involvement as it wouldn't justify a trial. It appears her wishes have changed, hence charges laid and the case at hand so I'm not sure what else you expected the school or police to do in those circumstances. If there is a more sinister reason why she has changed her mind, well that is what the defense will explore thoroughly to create doubt and discredit I suspect.

The irresponsible claim is on behalf of the authorities and indeed the school. From what I understand Maj didn't leave the school and surely if you have a potential "rape" offender in your midst, you are politely or impolitely asking that person to leave. As for the girl, she seemed ok to tell multiple people about the incident, and as a minor she would likely have been allowed to either video link or even write a statement to be read to the court. Plus she saw Maj everyday at school. It just doesn't add up that she simply wanted to forget about it. Judging only from the reports, I would reason that after going through the situation with multiple people over the age of 18 she may have reassessed the severity of what happened and as I have said throughout this, there is no doubt it was uncomfortable and she probably changed her mind at some point, but that it simply wasn't what she originally thought happened and she realised it wasn't black and white. Perhaps this is how she wants closure.

 

[Horace]

I am not sure why we didn't offer him another contract tbh, especially knowing that Currie was going. We literally can't give Goldy a rest for a minor injury, we are relying on someone being on the LTI list to elevate him due to the number of senior players we have.

We have one empty spot on our list and unfortunately, there is almost always someone who ends up on the long term injury list.

 

[Elite Master]

I'm glad we kept him, I still think theres a bit to work with for Daw.

 

[Saintly31]

The irresponsible claim is on behalf of the authorities and indeed the school. From what I understand Maj didn't leave the school and surely if you have a potential "rape" offender in your midst, you are politely or impolitely asking that person to leave. As for the girl, she seemed ok to tell multiple people about the incident, and as a minor she would likely have been allowed to either video link or even write a statement to be read to the court. Plus she saw Maj everyday at school. It just doesn't add up that she simply wanted to forget about it. Judging only from the reports, I would reason that after going through the situation with multiple people over the age of 18 she may have reassessed the severity of what happened and as I have said throughout this, there is no doubt it was uncomfortable and she probably changed her mind at some point, but that it simply wasn't what she originally thought happened and she realised it wasn't black and white. Perhaps this is how she wants closure.

Huh? Seriously?

In your previous post you claim it is unfair that Majak that he has to face charges 8 years down the track for an incident where the evidence appears very similar, then now you are claiming that Majak should have been kicked out of the school based on unsubstantiated claims made by a teenage girl that he is a rape offender but didn't want to take the incident further?

Ever heard of the presumption of innocence? For Majak to be treated that way would have been the very definition of unfair, hence it didn't and shouldn't have happened.

As for the reasons why she did change her mind, and the story not weighing up etc etc, I don't know the girl nor hearing the evidence so who knows why, none of us do. I suspect it could be closure too, but that is pure speculation also.

 

[Moti]

Huh? Seriously?

In your previous post you claim it is unfair that Majak that he has to face charges 8 years down the track for an incident where the evidence appears very similar, then now you are claiming that Majak should have been kicked out of the school based on unsubstantiated claims made by a teenage girl that he is a rape offender but didn't want to take the incident further?

Ever heard of the presumption of innocence? For Majak to be treated that way would have been the very definition of unfair, hence it didn't and shouldn't have happened.

As for the reasons why she did change her mind, and the story not weighing up etc etc, I don't know the girl nor hearing the evidence so who knows why, none of us do. I suspect it could be closure too, but that is pure speculation also.

All of it is speculation.

And yes, if as has been reported, the class was teasing her because she was raped and all the connotations, I think suggesting to to Majak's family that it is best to seek another school would indeed be the best course of action. It isn't an admission of guilt but a welfare issue. For the two to be in the same school for 2 years together suggests either nothing indeed happened or the school was on tender hooks for 24 months.

 

[La Flama Blanca]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but could there be any chance that we have already asked - or will ask - the AFL for a possible replacement rookie if Majak is locked up?

I doubt it given we knew the circumstances when we placed him on the rookie list.

West Coast had a similar situation last year with Murray Newman and they didn't get a replacement.

 

[Saintly31]

All of it is speculation.

And yes, if as has been reported, the class was teasing her because she was raped and all the connotations, I think suggesting to to Majak's family that it is best to seek another school would indeed be the best course of action. It isn't an admission of guilt but a welfare issue. For the two to be in the same school for 2 years together suggests either nothing indeed happened or the school was on tender hooks for 24 months.

Nah, Majak didn't have to do anything. At that time he had done nothing wrong (which may still be the case).

If she had a major problem at the time but refused to take action, she is the one who should leave the school, not Majak. I'm surprised you think otherwise when you are pushing the 'unfair" angle.

 

[Moti]

Nah, Majak didn't have to do anything. At that time he had done nothing wrong (which may still be the case).

If she had a major problem at the time but refused to take action, she is the one who should leave the school, not Majak. I'm surprised you think otherwise when you are pushing the 'unfair" angle.

Unfair now after 8 years, however, back then, I would take the ultra protective approach and try to make sure that it doesn't disrupt either party or the school in general. For what we know it might have happened but the Daws said no, which is totally fine, but it doesn't come across that way. I know I wouldn't want a family member attending a school if everyone thinks they are a rapist, not a great environment for Maj.

 

[QueenslandRoo]

Officially re-rookied.

Putting aside the current court case, I must say I'm proud of the club for standing by Maj in his hour of need..........

I "liked your post" but that wasn't enough. Needed to say it. So here it is ...

Your post was really good. I liked it.

 

[giantroo]

Majak Daw rape trial: Alleged second victim denied she was raped

ANOTHER woman allegedly raped by footballer Majak Daw as a teenager told a detective it never happened.

A jury heard the allegation earlier this week when a woman that claims Daw raped her when she was 15 was told by another girl that she was also attacked.
Daw has pleaded not guilty to three counts of rape over the alleged attack on the teenager beside Skeleton Creek in Altona Meadows in 2007 when he was aged 16.

The teenager was allegedly raped by the Sudanese-born footballer at a house party attended by up to 100 teens.

Today the detective responsible for bringing the case against the 24-year old said the alleged second victim denied she had been assaulted by Daw.

Sgt Mark Moloney said he spoke to the woman after being told by Daw’s alleged victim that the footballer “did something similar’’ to her.

Sgt Moloney said he contacted the girl on May 28 last year.

“She didn’t know what you were talking about,” Daw’s barrister David Sexton suggested.

“Correct,’’ Sgt Moloney replied.

The detective said the supposed victim claimed to have never been attacked by Daw and further denied ever saying so.

Daw’s alleged victim claimed she was approached by the girl shortly after her alleged attack by the footballer became common knowledge across her school.


When Mr Sexton accused the victim of making the allegation up, she vehemently denied it.

“No, I didn't make it up, no,” she said.

Mr Sexton accused the alleged victim of fabricating the story to further incriminate Daw.

But the woman insisted the conversation took place.

“No. I remember that conversation ... there was more people around and it was just me and her talking and she said that. I had told my mum later on and then later on, when (the police officer) was at my house, my mum goes: 'what about the other girl you told me about' and then that's why I told (the officer).”


The court heard today that the victim’s account of the alleged attack had changed several times between her first report in 2007 and her final statement last year.

Two police witnesses gave evidence the alleged victim said she agreed to kissing Daw before he attacked — a claim she now denies.

She also failed to mention several key allegations, which were only added weeks after her lengthy May 19 statement last year.

The trial continues.

 

[naturally north]

North well played, got me riled, confused and bamboozled. I should have realised you knew what you were doing.
Have a vacant spot on the senior list, should things go Majak's way. If not we lose a rookie spot and Majak's career is finished. And we've done all that's possible, cannot ask for more than that.

 

[hilly]

Oh Moti..

 

[benbanjo]

From a footballing standpoint I think it'd be a horrible decision if we didn't!

Well its not really an easy situation though is it, lets see how the court case unfolds.

 

[Saintly31]

Unfair now after 8 years, however, back then, I would take the ultra protective approach and try to make sure that it doesn't disrupt either party or the school in general. For what we know it might have happened but the Daws said no, which is totally fine, but it doesn't come across that way. I know I wouldn't want a family member attending a school if everyone thinks they are a rapist, not a great environment for Maj.

Neither would I, but that is Majak's call not the schools. If he was forced to leave based on an unsubstantiated (I.e. irrelevant) allegation with an otherwise clear history, would be actionable if kicked out of the school against his will for no legitimate reason as you are suggesting.

If he was charged, then different story entirely.

 

[Bigeasy]

If Majak is acquitted which is looking likely then I think he will be auto promoted to senior list.

 

[Saintly31]

I am not sure why we didn't offer him another contract tbh, especially knowing that Currie was going. We literally can't give Goldy a rest for a minor injury, we are relying on someone being on the LTI list to elevate him due to the number of senior players we have.

Errr.....because if he is locked up we'd very likely have to pay the contract out? (based on the terms his agent would have been wanting)

It's hard to perform whilst spending time in the big house.

On Rookie means it's a minimal outlay in the scheme of things, keeps Majak at the club in uncertain times, and brings flexibility as we obviously need ruck support and likely a required player.

The club has handled exactly the right way IMO.

We have one empty spot on our list and unfortunately, there is almost always someone who ends up on the long term injury list.

Nothing to do with that at all IMO.

 

[naturally north]

Errr.....because if he is locked up we'd very likely have to pay the contract out? His agent would have been wanting to enforce contract stands regardless of trial and no way we would accept those conditions.

It's hard to perform for us whilst spending time in the big house.

On Rookie means it's a minimal outlay in the scheme of things, keeps Majak at the club in uncertain times, and brings flexibility as we need ruck support.

I'm glad he has been rookied and the club has handled exactly the right way IMO, as no doubt he wouldn't have been rookied but for the matters at hand.



Nothing to do with that at all IMO.

Really?

Rubbish this looks and smells like a deal that at worst case scenario we lose a Rookie listed player as apposed to a senior listed player. I highly doubt we or any club would sign a contract that makes us liable if said player goes to prison.

 

[Saintly31]

Really?

Rubbish this looks and smells like a deal that at worst case scenario we lose a Rookie listed player as apposed to a senior listed player. I highly doubt we or any club would sign a contract that makes us liable if said player goes to prison.

I suspect that is exactly what it is.

I think we are supporting Daw in as best as possible knowing no other club will touch him - he deserves that respect IMO. But also mitigating damage at the same time if the result doesn't fall the way we (as a club) hope whether it be a minimal pay out or just using up a rookie spot.

 

[the harry]

I know Maj could physically dominate any school girl, but he isn't an octopus, he can't hold every limb down and cover her mouth and avoid any evidence of struggle. Can you be raped without evidence of a struggle? Definitely, but you would need forensic evidence that she was drugged or intoxicated to the point she couldn't give consent. Even if she was overpowered, I can't imagine anyone who was being raped who had full control of their mind would not make some effort to struggle against an unwanted attack, even if it resulted in minor physical evidence such as bruising or scratches.

At the end of the day, I want to see justice, however, I just am not confident in our legal system.

Just for all you kids reading this, if she says "no" at any point and you keep going, it's rape. She doesn't have to struggle, she can lie there and not move and as long as she does not consent, it's rape.

As for what you cannot imagine Tas I'm glad you cannot imagine being raped. The absence of defensive wounds doesn't prove consent however.

 

[Horace]

Errr.....because if he is locked up we'd very likely have to pay the contract out? (based on the terms his agent would have been wanting)

It's hard to perform whilst spending time in the big house.

On Rookie means it's a minimal outlay in the scheme of things, keeps Majak at the club in uncertain times, and brings flexibility as we obviously need ruck support and likely a required player.

The club has handled exactly the right way IMO.



Nothing to do with that at all IMO.

What I was trying to say Saintly is that if we need in the future to upgrade him in a hurry because of a short term injury to Goldy, it is unlikely that we will be prevented from that because we already have one spot free and unfortunately we , like most clubs usually lose someone else to a long term injury.

I think (perhaps in hindsight) the decision to delist and then re-rookie him, was a very smart move, because in the event that he does get sent away, he is only on a one year contract, which harsh and all as it sounds, minimises any potential cost implications.