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

[Tas]

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.

A lot of players have conditions placed on their contracts, we could have offered him a 2 year deal on the condition that if he was found guilty in his case then he would be terminated and only paid out for the amount of time he was at the club. I am sure he would have agreed to it.

How do you know what the club's motivation was? Did someone tell you?

In our justice system anyone is innocent until proven guilty, I am sure anyone at the club or AFL house would want to be given the same due process and assumed to be innocent until proven guilty if someone had made an accusation against them. If you could get anyone effectively fired based on an accusation alone then our society would be a terrible place.

The only acceptable reason to drop him to a rookie position is if we feel he doesn't warrant a spot on the senior list. If slashing his salary down to a schoolboy level and giving him the stress of worrying about his job security at the worst time of his life fighting to clear his name is considered supporting him then I'd hate to see us out to get someone. :stern look

 

[Horace]

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.

Thanks Harold. We actually do know a bit about these things but if you think your contribution was required or welcome, then live on in your own delusioned world. Bye.

 

[Saintly31]

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.

Apologies if I missed what you were trying to say then Horace, but yep I think your assessment is spot on in how the club has handled the 'situation'

 

[Tas]

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.

I didn't say it wasn't rape if someone says no. The prosecution is bound with the responsibility to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, it is not up to the jury to guess. He says she consented, she says she didn't so there is reasonable doubt there, word alone from the accuser and defendant is not sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof requirement. So, there needs to be other forms of evidence which suggests she was raped.

If some Olympic heavy lifter was going to pound my arse against my will (who could ragdoll me physically) I would still resist with everything I had physically speaking, assuming I wasn't drugged or unconscious due to alcohol. I doubt either of us would end up with a clean bill of health without any mark or blemish. If someone wasn't stone drunk or drugged and they didn't consent then I would expect some forensic evidence of it not being consensual, especially if there was no consent before it had begun. The lack of forensic evidence would raise doubt if there was a rape.

It doesn't mean that the defendant isn't guilty, it means the evidence is insufficient to remove all reasonable doubt.

While the absence of bruising, scratches or any form of physical evidence does not mean someone was not raped, but it should raise some level of doubt in a juror's mind if the person consented or not and the juror would be obliged to pass a not guilty verdict even if they believe he may have or even likely did it. That isn't sufficient enough to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. There would have to be a good reason why there was no evidence, like the accuser had forensic evidence that she was drugged or was not in control of their body due to alcohol level. That would mean the accuser would have been unable to give consent and would unlikely have resisted in any significant manner. In that case the only real concern would be her ability to identify her alleged attacker, if that was satisfied (ie an eyewitness) then you could still be free of reasonable doubt and pass a guilty verdict without sufficient forensic evidence, in my opinion.

I honestly couldn't give a flying * what you think or feel, as a juror you are instructed by the judge as to your responsibilities as a juror and only give a guilty verdict if you are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that they are guilty, that level of burden is extremely difficult to prove. Some other countries have been tossing up the idea of men proving they were given consent, but that doesn't exist here.

 

[Saintly31]

A lot of players have conditions placed on their contracts, we could have offered him a 2 year deal on the condition that if he was found guilty in his case then he would be terminated and only paid out for the amount of time he was at the club. I am sure he would have agreed to it.

How do you know what the club's motivation was? Did someone tell you?

In our justice system anyone is innocent until proven guilty, I am sure anyone at the club or AFL house would want to be given the same due process and assumed to be innocent until proven guilty if someone had made an accusation against them. If you could get anyone effectively fired based on an accusation alone then our society would be a terrible place.

The only acceptable reason to drop him to a rookie position is if we feel he doesn't warrant a spot on the senior list. If slashing his salary down to a schoolboy level and giving him the stress of worrying about his job security at the worst time of his life fighting to clear his name is considered supporting him then I'd hate to see us out to get someone. :stern look

Considering you have determined all of the evidence in Majak's case as circumstantial (off media reports) and can't reach a conviction as Judge Tas, i'm surprised you then claim "how do I know" regarding motivation, when clearly I don't, and clearly you don't on other more important matters......

There is no way we would have offered such a contract. Why would we? We get the best of both worlds not having to worry about the terms being challenged later, whilst keeping Daw at the club when clearly no other club would touch him. To me it's a win/win, and yes we are supporting him far more than others might.

Slashing down to "schoolboy level" and North not supporting him? Are you kidding me!? Rookie salary is near 100 grand with much less "work" hours than others of the same age.....give me a spell Tas.

That's still a very favorable salary/outcome for a huge % of the population, even discounting those who don't have multiple rape charges facing them and potentially could be locked away.

 

[Tas]

Considering you have determined all of the evidence in Majak's case as circumstantial (off media reports) and can't reach a conviction as Judge Tas, i'm surprised you then claim "how do I know", when clearly I don't, and clearly you don't on other more important matters......

lol you always throw a hissy fit whenever someone questions your wobbly facts.

I can only comment on Daw's case by what little is displayed in the media, and they happen to have given nothing other than hearsay which is circumstantial and doesn't prove guilt.

There is no way we would have offered such a contract.

Why?

Why would we?

I thought we were "supporting him".

We get the best of both worlds not having to worry about the terms being challenged later, whilst keeping Daw at the club when no one else would touch him.

I dunno, I'd feel pretty disappointed if I was innocent and I was demoted.

To me it's a win/win, and yes we are supporting him far more than others might.

Is it relevant what others would do? Isn't the right thing more important?

Slashing down to "schoolboy level" and North not supporting him? Are you kidding me!?! Rookie salary is near 100 grand with much less "work" hours than others of the same age.....give me a spell Tas.

2016 Rookie Salary is $57,100, I was being facetious, he could earn $58,000 as a garbage collector...

That's still a very favorable salary/outcome for a huge % of the population at that age, even discounting those who don't have multiple rape charges facing them and potentially could be locked away.

Really? I feel sorry for a huge % of the population.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Pure theorizing and observation ahead based upon the information AVAILABLE to us.



If he is convicted would assume it will go to an appeals court based on how off the (public) evidence presented seems.

• Changed 5-6 points of her initial story to closer match her friends testimony.
  
• Claims someone else was raped by Majak, this person denies it ever happening or her ever insinuating it happened.
  
• Male witnesses story seems to have changed- I believe he said she returned to the party upset and withdrawn, latest hearing said she was hysterical and mumbling her words.
  
• Adding additional details later on (not just extra detail but completely new claims).
  
• Inconsistencies in claims- She claims Majak covered her mouth while doing it, her friend claims Majak had her pinned down by leaning on her chest with his hand, the mechanics of being able to do both of these actions as well as the other... things... that were claimed would be nigh on impossible to do with his weight pushed forward like this (this is just personal opinion, have done a bit of BJJ and its always better to have a person with their weight shifted forward and two hands at your chest or higher, gives you a lot of leverage with your legs and the other person struggles to control your lower body).
  
• The only thing that seems unarguably true is she told her teacher she was raped and then was unhappy with the teacher when the teacher broke confidence and reported it.

Would think Majaks representation would feel a bit upset if a conviction went ahead with that up on the board (except the 2nd last point which is just speculation).

 

[Saintly31]

lol you always throw a hissy fit whenever someone questions your wobbly facts.

I can only comment on Daw's case by what little is displayed in the media, and they happen to have given nothing other than hearsay which is circumstantial and doesn't prove guilt.

2016 Rookie Salary is $57,100

Errr....maybe not reach comment in way of conclusions then knowing full well (or maybe you don't) that what is being reported is not the full story? You do realise that media reporters on cases of law are under strict guidelines on what can be reported don't you? Of course you do.

I don't throw a hissy fit at all. I'd like to know your facts of why there is no evidence in the current trial of Majak that is purely circumstantial and can't reach a conviction. It's fantastic and I think in future we go away with a jury and do a trial by media in future so people like you can determine it

Well I admit I was wrong if rookie salary is that much. Thought about 80K. Even so, for a guy who can't get a game in the 1s and could be locked up, 57K is better than nothing and i'm glad we as a club have offered him that lifeline regardless of his multiple rape charges

 

[Saintly31]

he could earn $58,000 as a garbage collector...

Really? I feel sorry for a huge % of the population.

That's offensive.

There would be various posters on here earning less, equal or slightly more than that figure.

Just a terrible comment.

 

[Tas]

Errr....maybe not reach comment in way of conclusions then knowing full well (or maybe you don't) that what is being reported is not the full story? You do realise that media reporters on cases of law are under strict guidelines on what can be reported don't you? Of course you do.

I don't know s**t about what the media can or can not say. I am very clear about giving my opinion, you are claiming that the club wouldn't do something as if you had some kind of definitive knowledge.

I don't throw a hissy fit at all. I'd like to know your facts of why there is no evidence in the current trial of Majak that is purely circumstantial and can't reach a conviction. It's fantastic and I think in future we go away with a jury and do a trial by media in future so people like you can determine it

You get very defensive when someone questions you.

My only real reflection on the case came after the HS report on what the officer said about the accuser's testimony, if any juror believes Daw is guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt" after that then I would question their objectivity. It should severely hamper her as a reliable witness if the person she claimed told her that Daw also raped her said she didn't make that statement and Daw never did anything to her. If she is wrong on that then what else is she wrong about?

Well I admit I was wrong if rookie salary is that much. Thought about 80K. Even so, for a guy who can't get a game in the 1s and could be locked up, 57K is better than nothing and i'm glad we as a club have offered him that lifeline regardless of his multiple rape charges

That is magnanimous of you. :stern look

 

[Tas]

That's offensive.

There would be various posters on here earning less, equal or slightly more than that figure.

Just a terrible comment.

Perhaps a career change? I doubt the entrance requirement is that high. There is nothing wrong with getting your hands dirty, I have done worse jobs for a lot less.

 

[Gasometer]

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

What?

 

[Zondor]

ANAL. :stern look

 

[Twinkletoes]

One thing's for sure and that is if he is acquitted of these charges and no appeal is forthcoming, this entire thread is for the tip and a new one will begin instead, free of the many many posts about rape.

In any other circumstance the word "rape" is not allowed in BF land BTW. In this instance it's unavoidable unfortunately.

 

[Joshen]

One thing's for sure and that is if he is acquitted of these charges and no appeal is forthcoming, this entire thread is for the tip and a new one will begin instead, free of the many many posts about rape.

In any other circumstance the word "rape" is not allowed in BF land BTW. In this instance it's unavoidable unfortunately.

Would it be possible simply to delete all posts pertaining to the trial with a subsequent post explaining situation/result?

I only ask since I quite like having the full history and remarks about a player all kept it one thread, it truly is a personal journey/testimony and it'd be a shame to lose it all due to one part of his life unrelated to his career.

 

[Twinkletoes]

It's far easier to post a link to the original thread in the OP of the new one Joshen. It would be too big a job having to trawl through this thread to find any mention of the allegations, charges and subsequent trial before having to delete them.

Anyway, we're not at that stage.............yet, so play on...............

 

[Only Forwards]

One thing's for sure and that is if he is acquitted of these charges and no appeal is forthcoming, this entire thread is for the tip and a new one will begin instead, free of the many many posts about rape.

In any other circumstance the word "rape" is not allowed in BF land BTW. In this instance it's unavoidable unfortunately.

Sounds like a cut n shut.

 

[Zondor]

It's far easier to post a link to the original thread in the OP of the new one Joshen. It would be too big a job having to trawl through this thread to find any mention of the allegations, charges and subsequent trial before having to delete them.

Anyway, we're not at that stage.............yet, so play on...............

Now when I tried telling the masses that having dedicated player threads was a bad idea did anybody want to listen? :smirk look

Don't worry Toes', just throw Adolf under the bus and blame him. :stern look

 

[Zondor]

Sounds like a cut n shut.

Yeah and as painful as slicing ones testicles. :stern look

 

[War Machine]

It's far easier to post a link to the original thread in the OP of the new one Joshen. It would be too big a job having to trawl through this thread to find any mention of the allegations, charges and subsequent trial before having to delete them.

Anyway, we're not at that stage.............yet, so play on...............

I accept the challenge and the modship that comes with it

 

[The Filth Wizard]

I accept the challenge and the modship that comes with it

Done. Now step into my office.

Why?

Because you're f***ing fired.

 

[Flawed Genius]

Twinkletoes
King Corey
The Filth Wizard

 

[miss_kate18]

Maybe. Maybe not. Just because something an incident occurred years ago doesn't mean it didn't happen or can't be substantiated to the required burden of proof.

She didn't file with police no, but again that doesn't mean there isn't evidence, rather she chose not to pursue it at the time which could be due to maturity or any number of reasons.

Daw is hardly famous mate. He is just a unique AFL player due to background, nothing more. Half of Melb or more wouldn't have a clue who he is, plus the jury wouldn't care anyway. It's about what happened, not who he is (well, in theory at least and I do understand where you are coming from in terms of "risk" the eventual finding is impacted in some way)

Loving your work in this thread.

There are many, many reasons why a woman would not report sexual assault to police.

 

[miss_kate18]

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.

Speaking as a teacher, you cannot ask people to leave a state school without multiple proven breaches of the law or school rules. Majak was not found guilty of sexual offences while at school, therefore the school could not ask him to leave.