Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Thread X

[BrewSmackerVeiny]

 

[Lord Nicholson]

 

[HirdyLannister]

Question: What's happened with Majak Daw's case? Swept under the carpet?

 

[Tas]

Question: What's happened with Majak Daw's case? Swept under the carpet?

It is later on in the year I believe.

 

[Tas]

I don't know if Daw is innocent or guilty, law presumes innocent until proven guilty, however, Daw has an expensive lawyer and I would think the probability of a successful conviction against a decent law firm would be spectacularly low, because people lie, the police are incompetent and you only need to introduce some element of doubt and instruct the jury that their duty is to dismiss if there is any possible doubt.

After Daw was committed to stand trial his lawyer said:
"It just so happens that five or six of the amendments she made in her second statement happened to be exactly on point...with (her friend's) statement, which were inconsistent with her first statement," Daw's lawyer Francesca Holmes said.

Changing the story after 7 years to be consistent with your friend's testimony is more than likely going to be attacked aggressively and used to discredit pretty much the only evidence she had against him.

I do hope he is not guilty, largely because I think he is likely going to get off. I wouldn't want him to get off if he was guilty.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

I don't know if Daw is innocent or guilty, law presumes innocent until proven guilty, however, Daw has an expensive lawyer and I would think the probability of a successful conviction against a decent law firm would be spectacularly low, because people lie, the police are incompetent and you only need to introduce some element of doubt and instruct the jury that their duty is to dismiss if there is any possible doubt.

After Daw was committed to stand trial his lawyer said:
"It just so happens that five or six of the amendments she made in her second statement happened to be exactly on point...with (her friend's) statement, which were inconsistent with her first statement," Daw's lawyer Francesca Holmes said.

Changing the story after 7 years to be consistent with your friend's testimony is more than likely going to be attacked aggressively and used to discredit pretty much the only evidence she had against him.

I do hope he is not guilty, largely because I think he is likely going to get off. I wouldn't want him to get off if he was guilty.

I hope he's not guilty because that means a girl didn't get raped by him...

 

[Tas]

I hope he's not guilty because that means a girl didn't get raped by him...

Then that raises another significant problem, bringing false charges to trial and permanently smearing his name. It wont matter if he gets off, even if she admits she wasn't raped, a lot of people will consider him a rapist, much like they do Milne and others who have been found not guilty. Not guilty has the smear of meaning not enough evidence to prosecute to a lot of people in the general public. There is usually no legal consequences for someone doing that to someone.

In part I have little sympathy for people who have casual sex with people they do not really know well enough to avoid accusations of rape, but those that push false claims to court for whatever reason be it guilt or shame or revenge, they are a significant cause for jurors to doubt the stories of real victims, and why it is hard for real victims to prosecute real rapists and for that I find those false rape claims that go to court abhorrent. That some people are prepared to potentially ruin someone's life for often trivial and selfish reasons is unfathomable. People need to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions.

Not guilty is not sufficient imo, they should rule saying not enough evidence to prosecute (which opens up a possible civil suit) or hopefully in only rare cases that they believe the accuser fabricated charges in which case the accuser should face a perjury charge from the judge. Accusers who know the defendant is not guilty should fear bringing false charges to court.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Then that raises another significant problem, bringing false charges to trial and permanently smearing his name. It wont matter if he gets off, even if she admits she wasn't raped, a lot of people will consider him a rapist, much like they do Milne and others who have been found not guilty. Not guilty has the smear of meaning not enough evidence to prosecute to a lot of people in the general public. There is usually no legal consequences for someone doing that to someone.

In part I have little sympathy for people who have casual sex with people they do not really know well enough to avoid accusations of rape, but those that push false claims to court for whatever reason be it guilt or shame or revenge, they are a significant cause for jurors to doubt the stories of real victims, and why it is hard for real victims to prosecute real rapists and for that I find those false rape claims that go to court abhorrent. That some people are prepared to potentially ruin someone's life for often trivial and selfish reasons is unfathomable. People need to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions.

Not guilty is not sufficient imo, they should rule saying not enough evidence to prosecute (which opens up a possible civil suit) or hopefully in only rare cases that they believe the accuser fabricated charges in which case the accuser should face a perjury charge from the judge. Accusers who know the defendant is not guilty should fear bringing false charges to court.

I largely agree. Question (because I've never thought about it before), if a defendant is found not guilty can they go after the 'victim' of the criminal case in a civil case?

 

[Tas]

I largely agree. Question (because I've never thought about it before), if a defendant is found not guilty can they go after the 'victim' of the criminal case in a civil case?

Of course, however, you can't sue someone for money they don't have. Any significant suit beyond their means to pay, for most young people it is pretty much any result, they will go straight for bankruptcy. I would imagine people only take this vindictive route to force bankruptcy, which is a minor inconvenience in this day and age, some people choose to go to the wall voluntarily for too much credit card debt.

 

[BrunoV]

Think that Daw would be more concerned about being sued himself.

It's much easier to make out a civil claim (unless the complainant and her friends are found to be total liars in the criminal trial).

 

[Tas]

Think that Daw would be more concerned about being sued himself.

It's much easier to make out a civil claim (unless the complainant and her friends are found to be total liars in the criminal trial).

The burden of proof is lower in a civil trial, it goes from beyond all reasonable doubt to the balance of probability which means to defend you have to do more than establish any doubt. However, in a civil case it doesn't mean you are guilty of rape, there is no rape charge in a civil case, these torts provide a wide range of grounds to sue people or entities for damages. These successful type of actions tend to bring in more than the accused as defendants to civil suit. ie she might also make a claim against the person having the party for a lack of supervision, security, etc.

The vast majority of these don't see the light of day in court, one study says that 97% that do go to court are settled before a judgement and the few that do go to court are rarely ever appealed. The risk for a plaintiff is not getting a result in excess of their claim which usually ends in them meeting some or all of the court costs and legal fees, it can be a financial risk to the plaintiff which is why most cases never reach a verdict.

Him being a minor at the time makes it very risky in terms of how much you risk making a claim for.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Of course, however, you can't sue someone for money they don't have. Any significant suit beyond their means to pay, for most young people it is pretty much any result, they will go straight for bankruptcy. I would imagine people only take this vindictive route to force bankruptcy, which is a minor inconvenience in this day and age, some people choose to go to the wall voluntarily for too much credit card debt.

Know someone who went bankrupt. Would not call it a minor inconvenience.

 

[bombermick]

So Bob Murphy thinks the Bullies youngsters are better than the crop he was part of. I like Bob, but that's a borderline crazy call as his group was sensational.

 

[doug85]

Then that raises another significant problem, bringing false charges to trial and permanently smearing his name. It wont matter if he gets off, even if she admits she wasn't raped, a lot of people will consider him a rapist, much like they do Milne and others who have been found not guilty. Not guilty has the smear of meaning not enough evidence to prosecute to a lot of people in the general public. There is usually no legal consequences for someone doing that to someone.

I think there's some symmetry between your points and what the EFC might have to put up with for the rest of its existence depending on Tuesdays verdict.

 

[Tas]

Know someone who went bankrupt. Would not call it a minor inconvenience.

Every year more than 20,000 Australians apply for bankruptcy, it isn't as significant as it used to be. I've known many who have become bankrupt over the years as a bean counter, as long as the bankruptcy is not prohibitive for your work then you can get around the worst of the negatives. Donald Trump went bankrupt in 1992, so it doesn't need to be he end of the world. The first 5-10 years can be a bit tough, but you can make it a lot less painful than it can be if you prepare for it rather than it being forced on you.

People should get professional advice if they are considering it. Can get free legal advice provided by the government.

 

[Tas]

I think there's some symmetry between your points and what the EFC might have to put up with for the rest of its existence depending on Tuesdays verdict.

Yeah, if Bombers get off then I doubt all those mudslingers are going to change their opinion.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Every year more than 20,000 Australians apply for bankruptcy, it isn't as significant as it used to be. I've known many who have become bankrupt over the years as a bean counter, as long as the bankruptcy is not prohibitive for your work then you can get around the worst of the negatives. Donald Trump went bankrupt in 1992, so it doesn't need to be he end of the world. The first 5-10 years can be a bit tough, but you can make it a lot less painful than it can be if you prepare for it rather than it being forced on you.

People should get professional advice if they are considering it. Can get free legal advice provided by the government.

So many dodgy debt solution companies out there put people into bankruptcy for owing small amounts of money. These poor people (usually young and ignorant) don't actually know what they're getting into.

 

[Tas]

So many dodgy debt solution companies out there put people into bankruptcy for owing small amounts of money. These poor people (usually young and ignorant) don't actually know what they're getting into.

I just think there are a lot of people who have such a poor standard of living that the negatives wouldn't even register. For people who can get themselves out of debt in 5-10 years it would be insane to consider bankruptcy.

 

[BrunoV]

I think there's some symmetry between your points and what the EFC might have to put up with for the rest of its existence depending on Tuesdays verdict.

No there isn't. Not everything is some childish tit for tat.

It's a simple fact that Daw is exposed to potential civil litigation based on trespass (assault). There have been plenty of civil suits of this kind settled against AFL footballers (google 'ABC Four Corners, rape, Michael O'Loughlin, Peter Burgoyne and Adam Heuskus' for an idea of what one of Sydney's and the AFL's poster boys was involved in).

The burden of proof for the complainant to be successful in a potential civil trial is much less than what is required to find him guilty of the crime. It's puts Daw in a tough position regardless of the outcome of the criminal trial because he's a senior listed player and would be on a very good wage (compared to the average punter). He might also have property in his name. All this makes him a target for a genuinely wronged or opportunistic potential plaintiff (whether she is or isn't opportunistic is not something I have any view on because I haven't followed the case at all though the timing stinks).

If an action were to be brought his 'wealth' also gives him bargaining problems as far as settlement is concerned because the usual protection of being penniless doesn't apply and I would not have thought that any potential assignment of responsibility between him and event organisers (or who ever was referred to in Tas' post) would be particularly significant given the nature of the act (which is not to say that he did it, it's just that if he did I fail to see how the significant majority of responsibility is not his). He also wouldn't have that much money that this sort of thing couldn't ruin him.

He is not in a good place and I feel sorry for him because he was a minor at the time and the consequences for him now are so much greater than they would have been at the time of the incident. I'm open to a kid making a really bad decision, being punished but then being able to get on with adult life (though I'm assuming that this is in the realm of really bad mistake and not the violent, calculated action of a sociopath).

 

[Mercurial89]

No there isn't. Not everything is some childish tit for tat.

It's a simple fact that Daw is exposed to potential civil litigation based on trespass (assault). There have been plenty of civil suits of this kind settled against AFL footballers (google 'ABC Four Corners, rape, Michael O'Loughlin, Peter Burgoyne and Adam Heuskus' for an idea of what one of Sydney's and the AFL's poster boys was involved in).

The burden of proof for the complainant to be successful in a potential civil trial is much less than what is required to find him guilty of the crime. It's puts Daw in a tough position regardless of the outcome of the criminal trial because he's a senior listed player and would be on a very good wage (compared to the average punter). He might also have property in his name. All this makes him a target for a genuinely wronged or opportunistic potential plaintiff (whether she is or isn't opportunistic is not something I have any view on because I haven't followed the case at all though the timing stinks).

If an action were to be brought his 'wealth' also gives him bargaining problems as far as settlement is concerned because the usual protection of being penniless doesn't apply and I would not have thought that any potential assignment of responsibility between him and event organisers (or who ever was referred to in Tas' post) would be particularly significant given the nature of the act (which is not to say that he did it, it's just that if he did I fail to see how the significant majority of responsibility is not his). He also wouldn't have that much money that this sort of thing couldn't ruin him.

He is not in a good place and I feel sorry for him because he was a minor at the time and the consequences for him now are so much greater than they would have been at the time of the incident. I'm open to a kid making a really bad decision, being punished but then being able to get on with adult life (though I'm assuming that this is in the realm of really bad mistake and not the violent, calculated action of a sociopath).

Id never heard about the Sydney incident until I read about it on here. Real eye opener that one

 

[doug85]

No there isn't. Not everything is some childish tit for tat.

It's a simple fact that Daw is exposed to potential civil litigation based on trespass (assault). There have been plenty of civil suits of this kind settled against AFL footballers (google 'ABC Four Corners, rape, Michael O'Loughlin, Peter Burgoyne and Adam Heuskus' for an idea of what one of Sydney's and the AFL's poster boys was involved in).

The burden of proof for the complainant to be successful in a potential civil trial is much less than what is required to find him guilty of the crime. It's puts Daw in a tough position regardless of the outcome of the criminal trial because he's a senior listed player and would be on a very good wage (compared to the average punter). He might also have property in his name. All this makes him a target for a genuinely wronged or opportunistic potential plaintiff (whether she is or isn't opportunistic is not something I have any view on because I haven't followed the case at all though the timing stinks).

If an action were to be brought his 'wealth' also gives him bargaining problems as far as settlement is concerned because the usual protection of being penniless doesn't apply and I would not have thought that any potential assignment of responsibility between him and event organisers (or who ever was referred to in Tas' post) would be particularly significant given the nature of the act (which is not to say that he did it, it's just that if he did I fail to see how the significant majority of responsibility is not his). He also wouldn't have that much money that this sort of thing couldn't ruin him.

He is not in a good place and I feel sorry for him because he was a minor at the time and the consequences for him now are so much greater than they would have been at the time of the incident. I'm open to a kid making a really bad decision, being punished but then being able to get on with adult life (though I'm assuming that this is in the realm of really bad mistake and not the violent, calculated action of a sociopath).

Mate, I haven't got a clue what "childish tit for tat" has to do with anything I have posted.

My point is that even if our club is found not guilty, large sections of the AFL community will continue to villify us.

 

[BrunoV]

Mate, I haven't got a clue what "childish tit for tat" has to do with anything I have posted.

My point is that even if our club is found not guilty, large sections of the AFL community will continue to villify us.

Sorry I misread the tone of your post but it still has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

 

[doug85]

Sorry I misread the tone of your post but it still has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

It's a general bombers talk thread and I raised a point that relates to the bombers.

You went off half cocked.

Lets leave it.

 

[BrunoV]

I suppose next we all just want it to be over.

 

[revival_mode]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-positive-drug-test-20150330-1maznj.html.html