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.