Scandal Dustin Martin in drunken scuffle

thegrach

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Posts
3,429
Likes
1,993
Location
Bendigo, Vic
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chicago Bulls, 49ers
As has been mentioned, there are any number of reasons a person would not talk to police. You are upset that people decided based on reported facts, yet you believe without doubt that she made it up? Do you see the irony here?

Ask yourself: Why would you make up something as bizarre as a threat with a chopstick?
Why would his friend(s) have been so insistent and panicked in getting him away from the situation?
The police have said they don't think a criminal offence took place. Fair enough, but with no statement from the lady in question it is hardly the vindication you think it is.
I also don't think people were biased and wanting him to be guilty - but the facts as reported were not flattering, specially as he claims he can't recall what happened.

Also - I don't know if it was you that brought up provocation, but provocation isn't a defence in assault.
It it possible that the "facts as reported" were just plain incorrect? I would venture to say that they were not facts at all, just someones version of what may or may not have happened. If you think certain people weren't biased it's probably best that you keep that head buried Chief, the greatest Admin in history.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JackFlash

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Posts
7,203
Likes
5,819
Location
Docklands
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
QPR, Buffalo Bills, Melbourne Stars
jade is right. Dusty has been now proven never to have made those threats. The police have investigated a truly impartial organisation not influenced by the AFL like that other "body" that saw EFC not guilty.

The women lied. It is as simple as that.
Here comes the character assassination!
"The woman had decided not to make a statement to police for fear of being identified in any potential future court proceedings." That does not mean she lied about anything at all.
To successfully pursue your case in court it is necessary to have evidence to back up your claim. You can't just think you have a case, you must be able to prove it. Evidence can take several forms such as documents, sound and video recordings and witness statements (written statements about what the witness saw or heard) if she doesn't give the police a statement then the investigation can go no further, she was the key witness, the whole case revolves around her statement to the police. This is exactly what Richmond wanted, any good lawyer would've taken the same path knowing this is would be the most probable outcome, particularly with no physical harm. Evidence is used to prove the "facts in issue" in a court proceeding. The facts in issue are the things you will need to prove in order for your case to succeed. The police cannot find any criminal offence in which to prosecute because the key witness will not give them a statement.
Probably the most important of the exclusionary rules is known as the rule against hearsay.The other people at the restaurant!

Evidence that amounts to hearsay will not be admitted. Basically, this means that a person (person A) cannot give evidence of something another person (person B) said in an effort to prove that what was said by that person (person B) was true. There are also several exceptions to the general rule. A statement, for example, which is made at the same time as the central event, will not be subject to the rule. She made no such statement to the police in their investigation. When a person gives evidence it must normally be a direct account of what he/she actually saw or heard. A person's interpretation or opinion will not usually be admitted as evidence. Without the key witness statement, all any one else can do is give evidence to the time an event occurred, the weather or the general state or condition of the accused. Chopsticks? what chopsticks? Obviously something happened at Mr Miyagi's restaurant and chopsticks were certainly in use somewhere that night.....

Martin was always going to get off, now the Tigers can slap him on the wrist and get him ready to play football.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Posts
2,895
Likes
5,265
AFL Club
Richmond
So even after viewing CCTV footage and taking independent witness statements nothing criminal took place.
Half the posters here are still trying to grasp this. They fear if they admit they were wrong, and accept a person with a neck tattoo hasn't committed a crime, then this may cause some sort of cataclysmic cognitive dissonance event from which their feeble minds may never recover.

This thread should be locked and studied by psychology students.
 

Chief

110% sass!
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Posts
72,491
Likes
42,492
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Admin #2,981
How so Chief ?

Explain to me how he is proven to have threaten her ?
You don't seem to understand how this works.

"Dusty has been proven never to have made those threats." He hasn't.
"Explain to me how he is proven to have threaten her ?" He hasn't.

Bottom line and the facts are pretty clear. The police investigated the incident, interviewed witnesses, reviewed CCTV footage etc and her "alleged" story could not be proven and they, ya know the police are convinced no criminal action took place. I will say that again, the police have decided no criminal action had taken place....so again, I ask you, how is it not proven ?

Or are you also like the foaming masses on here convicting Dusty based solely on that women word and thats it. Is that better proof ? you claimed in a prior post that witnesses backed her up, well sorry, the rumors you heard were wrong...they didnt and the police investigation proved that.

In matter of fact, witnesses that were actually there came forward disputing her version, hence her allegation fell apart.

jade is right. Dusty has been now proven never to have made those threats. The police have investigated
They have.

a truly impartial organisation not influenced by the AFL
They are not.

The women lied. It is as simple as that.
Prove it.

It is pretty simple: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We know something happened. His mates were there pulling him away. When he says he doesn't remember, did his mates offer to fill in the blanks? I bet they did, but we get "I don't remember".

You can't validly use words like "proven" here. To what level is it proven?

Our brains like black and white stories, but this story is not so cut and dried. It is an inconclusive ending that we will all just have to live with.
 

Tiger71

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
17,979
Likes
52,643
AFL Club
Richmond
As has been mentioned, there are any number of reasons a person would not talk to police. You are upset that people decided based on reported facts, yet you believe without doubt that she made it up? Do you see the irony here?

Ask yourself: Why would you make up something as bizarre as a threat with a chopstick?
Why would his friend(s) have been so insistent and panicked in getting him away from the situation?
The police have said they don't think a criminal offence took place. Fair enough, but with no statement from the lady in question it is hardly the vindication you think it is.
I also don't think people were biased and wanting him to be guilty - but the facts as reported were not flattering, specially as he claims he can't recall what happened.

Also - I don't know if it was you that brought up provocation, but provocation isn't a defence in assault.
"As has been mentioned, there are any number of reasons a person would not talk to police. You are upset that people decided based on reported facts, yet you believe without doubt that she made it up? Do you see the irony here?"

Again Chief, this is point is the flaw for most on here. There has been no reported facts, just one accusation by that women that was treated as truth. if i am wrong, show me.

"Ask yourself: Why would you make up something as bizarre as a threat with a chopstick?"

maybe, when she was chatting with her bosses at CH7, she simply lied. Liars are not logical, she may have said the first thing that came to her mind and had to run with it. What is funny, even in the vision that was shown, how come Dusty was not holding a chopstick. Also do you think, Dusty would know how to eat with a chopstick ?

I'll ask you, how could dusty hover chopsticks over her head, and slam a hand next to her head, while towering over her, when a large table was between them ? it just did not happen.

"Why would his friend(s) have been so insistent and panicked in getting him away from the situation?"

His friends wanted him out of there as they did not want him to continue to be baited as that was clear, as that is what she was doing. Hell, one of the guys leading him away, came forward after the event countering her story as complete rubbish.

"The police have said they don't think a criminal offence took place. Fair enough, but with no statement from the lady in question it is hardly the vindication you think it is."

Actually Chief, the police dont think, they know nothing criminal happened. Based on witnesses that were there, CCTV footage etc. They could not have been more clearer on that fact. You do bring up a interesting point, as to why she offered no official statement to the police. Why didn't she ? If she was honest, she had the complete support from everyone here, just read this thread how quickly people jumped on Dusty. She had the support from every media outlet. if she was being truthful, she would have had zero fear of going to the police....actually her words as to why she didnt answer it best...."
she did not want to be identified if any further court action was taken in the future"

She did not make a statement, cause she made up her story at worst, or completely exaggerated it and when proven she did not want to be vulnerable to being sued...yeah, thats the actions of a innocent victim.

On Dusty's recollection, he knew that happened but he could not come forward and claim she was a liar. The club and the AFL would not allow him too, its one reason they pushed so quickly for the police to get involved.
 

Tiger71

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
17,979
Likes
52,643
AFL Club
Richmond
Here comes the character assassination!
"The woman had decided not to make a statement to police for fear of being identified in any potential future court proceedings." That does not mean she lied about anything at all.
To successfully pursue your case in court it is necessary to have evidence to back up your claim. You can't just think you have a case, you must be able to prove it. Evidence can take several forms such as documents, sound and video recordings and witness statements (written statements about what the witness saw or heard) if she doesn't give the police a statement then the investigation can go no further, she was the key witness, the whole case revolves around her statement to the police. This is exactly what Richmond wanted, any good lawyer would've taken the same path knowing this is would be the most probable outcome, particularly with no physical harm. Evidence is used to prove the "facts in issue" in a court proceeding. The facts in issue are the things you will need to prove in order for your case to succeed. The police cannot find any criminal offence in which to prosecute because the key witness will not give them a statement.
Probably the most important of the exclusionary rules is known as the rule against hearsay.The other people at the restaurant!

Evidence that amounts to hearsay will not be admitted. Basically, this means that a person (person A) cannot give evidence of something another person (person B) said in an effort to prove that what was said by that person (person B) was true. There are also several exceptions to the general rule. A statement, for example, which is made at the same time as the central event, will not be subject to the rule. She made no such statement to the police in their investigation. When a person gives evidence it must normally be a direct account of what he/she actually saw or heard. A person's interpretation or opinion will not usually be admitted as evidence. Without the key witness statement, all any one else can do is give evidence to the time an event occurred, the weather or the general state or condition of the accused. Chopsticks? what chopsticks? Obviously something happened at Mr Miyagi's restaurant and chopsticks were certainly in use somewhere that night.....

Martin was always going to get off, now the Tigers can slap him on the wrist and get him ready to play football.
yet its ok to assassinate Dustys reputation based on her unproven allegation ?
 

Chief

110% sass!
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Posts
72,491
Likes
42,492
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Admin #2,986
It it possible that the "facts as reported" were just plain incorrect? I would venture to say that they were not facts at all, just someones version of what may or may not have happened.
That's possible. All facts are just someone's version of the story. You'd be amazed if multiple stories about the same event were the same.

It is entirely incorrect to say it is proven not to have happened and that the lady lied. Simple as that. Yet that is the line some people are trying on.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tiger71

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
17,979
Likes
52,643
AFL Club
Richmond
That's possible. All facts are just someone's version of the story. You'd be amazed if multiple stories about the same event were the same.

It is entirely incorrect to say it is proven not to have happened and that the lady lied. Simple as that. Yet that is the line some people are trying on.
When I am stating proven i base it on the fact the police are impartial. They have come to the conclusion that her story of events did not match the evidence so no criminal matter happened.

The turn around and say how quick people on her just assumed what that lady stated was true and 100% correct.

Also just for the record. I stated at the start, if Dusty was proven after the investigation to have actually threatened this women, regardless of the reason he should get the book thrown at him.
 

UpTheGuts

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Posts
14,700
Likes
12,323
Location
3121
AFL Club
Richmond
That's possible. All facts are just someone's version of the story. You'd be amazed if multiple stories about the same event were the same.

It is entirely incorrect to say it is proven not to have happened and that the lady lied. Simple as that. Yet that is the line some people are trying on.
Exoneration is an appropriate term.

Statement was unequivocal - no offence occurred. The evidence was sufficient for the police to determine that.

It's not possible for the police's conclusion to have been more definitively stated. After a thorough investigation.

This isn't having a charge not proven. This is exoneration.
 

Chief

110% sass!
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Posts
72,491
Likes
42,492
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Admin #2,991
"As has been mentioned, there are any number of reasons a person would not talk to police. You are upset that people decided based on reported facts, yet you believe without doubt that she made it up? Do you see the irony here?"

Again Chief, this is point is the flaw for most on here. There has been no reported facts,
The allegation is the reported fact. The removal of Dustin from the restaurant is reported fact. His friends or others shouting "Dustin! Dustin! Leave it!" is reported fact (seen on video).

The police could have decided that it amounted to a public argument, which is not a crime. Without the lady's statement - she declined because she didn't want to go through the court case etc - they couldn't ever say more than that as they don't have any officially reported context of how she felt at the time. But we have what she said on TV, so we can make a pretty good guess that something nasty happened.

If nothing happened - why was he kicked out? Why were people getting him away from the lady?

Nothing is proven to have happened or not to have happened. It is not proven that she lied.

But we can see the bits and pieces that came out and work out that it wasn't just a pleasant exchange of views.
 

Brown Bottle

Seasoned Campaigner
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Posts
12,372
Likes
8,069
Location
Browntown
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
East Side Hawks
I told you? That was what was reported. We still don't know what happened as the main witness didn't give a statement. I doubt his mates - standing right there sharply telling him to come away - would have dobbed him in.
That's what you wrote in this very thread mate. You can review your posting history as easily as I can.

It's true that we don't know what happened. We don't know who was there, or what their witness statements said. What we do know is that it was investigated by VIC Police who found that there was no evidence of a crime being committed (or words to that effect).
 

Brown Bottle

Seasoned Campaigner
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Posts
12,372
Likes
8,069
Location
Browntown
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
East Side Hawks
As has been mentioned, there are any number of reasons a person would not talk to police. You are upset that people decided based on reported facts, yet you believe without doubt that she made it up? Do you see the irony here?
The only fact is that an allegation was made. The allegation itself is not fact.
 

Gosha

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Posts
10,948
Likes
28,680
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea FC
And I won't lose a wink of sleep over it if he doesn't.

Doesn't impact me in the slightest.

But we'll see if he does or does not miss any matches.
Will he still be gone cheaply by the end of the year as a result of this like you were outlandishly suggesting? :$:$:$
 
Top Bottom