Scandal Dustin Martin in drunken scuffle

Chief

110% sass!
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Posts
72,464
Likes
42,485
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Admin #3,026
Apparently Police asked the person she was with who disagreed with her version of events, so there seems to be proof.
Where was this reported?

Dusty saying "I don't remember" is towing the line as it stops any further questioning. He apologised for the same reason because he's a public figure. The apology was for anything she perceived, not for his actions as he didn't accept liability for her statement.
Yes, it was the politicians apology if a person reacted to what they said or did. That's not in dispute.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Posts
2,895
Likes
5,265
AFL Club
Richmond
Where was this reported?
It's been reported several times. Even her dinner companion disagreed with her version of events. She was in a highly emotional state due to seeing the Notorious One enjoying himself and taking frequent toilet breaks.

If you've been in a highly annoyed state, you'll know your recollection of events tends to be slightly exaggerated.
 

UpTheGuts

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Posts
14,700
Likes
12,323
Location
3121
AFL Club
Richmond
There are far more loose ends than you want to admit. That's fine: you have an investment in the outcome. I don't in any real sense. I just see words like "proven" and "exoneration" when no such thing has happened either way.

We'll have to agree to disagree.
That he was discourteous is probably true.

But the only independent assessor involved in this has concluded, definitively, that no criminal offence took place. After a thorough investigation.

That's what we have.

Dusty needs to be better, that's for sure. And the AFL may well reach its own conclusions, although their reported comments that "We've washed out hands of this" suggest they were OK for the police to decide if anything beyond Dusty being a Goose had occurred.

Brand sanction from the AFL is entirely possible. But it's great that the investigation showed Dusty didn't commit an offence.

Some here seem to wish he had.
 

DrMike

Premium Platinum
Joined
May 13, 2012
Posts
24,946
Likes
55,700
AFL Club
Richmond
It's been reported several times. Even her dinner companion disagreed with her version of events. She was in a highly emotional state due to seeing the Notorious One enjoying himself and taking frequent toilet breaks.

If you've been in a highly annoyed state, you'll know your recollection of events tends to be slightly exaggerated.
Don't forget that after her incident with Martin she proceeded to order dessert.
 

The Darkman

Team Captain
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Posts
561
Likes
678
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Oakland Raiders
I earlier put this on one of the other threads. I like to think I am unbiased. My understanding is the police investigation into this matter has been concluded due to no crime being committed.

Once again, an accuser (Tracey) can soil the reputation of a footballer without being held accountable. Tracey must be named publicly as a deterrent so players can interact with the public with being viewed as an 'easy target'. A public apology would be a minimal penalty.

I abhor domestic violence. It's a coward's way of demonstrating power as a form of self gratification. I equally dislike accusers who use 'half truths' to attract sympathy to their claims as is the case here. Hopefully the AFL will take a sensible approach when making their conclusions.
 

Gosha

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Posts
10,948
Likes
28,680
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea FC
Maybe you should go read the post instead of relying on quotes of quotes that other people have posted hey?
And you should probably wait until the investigation is over before you start making claims Richmond will get rid of Dustin cheaply at the end of the year.

I hope you enjoyed the scenario you created in your head while it lasted, but you should try and come to terms with the fact he has been cleared by the police - the people who the AFL and Richmond referred the case to. Cheerio.
 

UpTheGuts

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Posts
14,700
Likes
12,323
Location
3121
AFL Club
Richmond
No I am not saying that - I am saying that the police don't actually determine whether a crime occurred, the courts do. Hopefully this isn't a concept beyond you.
So Dusty would be more innocent if he was charged and then the charge was not upheld? Poor bloke. Damned either way
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jade

Smug lives here.
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Posts
32,942
Likes
48,356
AFL Club
Essendon
And you should probably wait until the investigation is over before you start making claims Richmond will get rid of Dustin cheaply at the end of the year.

I hope you enjoyed the scenario you created in your head while it lasted, but you should try and come to terms with the fact he has been cleared by the police - the people who the AFL and Richmond referred the case to. Cheerio.
I'll repeat it again, go read the post, and then come back and repeat your assertion.
 

Tiger71

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
17,977
Likes
52,633
AFL Club
Richmond
No I am not saying that - I am saying that the police don't actually determine whether a crime occurred, the courts do. Hopefully this isn't a concept beyond you.
lol, you are a simple minded person. The police investigate crime, if the police believe a crime has taken place they lay charges. Courts are there to hear said charges and make a decision based on the evidence before them. To be as simple minded to suggest police don't determine if a crime has been committed is simplistic at best.

Bottom line. Police say " We believe a crime happened based on there evidence" Courts say " We either agree and convict or disagree and dismiss". So police DO determine if a crime has been committed, courts just either enforce the law or dismiss if either the process has not been done correctly or the evidence can be countered.

Now i know you will come back with " But the courts convict blah blah blah". I am countering your silly point that the police dont determine if a crime happened :drunk:
 

Chief

110% sass!
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Posts
72,464
Likes
42,485
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Admin #3,040
Except you're saying it from a public perspective, I'm saying it from a Police perspective.

The Police had enough evidence, we just don't know what it is.
That is why it is contentious: nobody has tested the evidence they do have. We only get to use words like "proven", "unproven", "exonerated" once the evidence has been tested.

Flip it on its head:
"We've spoken to everyone involved and decided a criminal offence took place and sentenced Dustin to 18 months in minimum security."

Doesn't work, does it?

She was in a highly emotional state due to seeing the Notorious One enjoying himself and taking frequent toilet breaks.
Oh for God's sake :)
 

blackshadow

Premium Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Posts
22,969
Likes
28,184
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Team WADA
It's up to the Police to determine whether there's evidence of a crime being committed that could result in a prosecution.
Agreed - so in this case the police have found insufficient evidence to support a criminal charge.

But you didn't answer my question - Is it actually up to the police or the courts to determine if a crime has been committed?
 

Tiger71

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
17,977
Likes
52,633
AFL Club
Richmond
That is why it is contentious: nobody has tested the evidence they do have.
Heh ? The police lead a investigation that went on nearly 4 weeks. Are you suggesting they did not test the evidence ? Even though they interviewed all witnesses, including Tracy, analysed the CCTV footage etc ?
 

Tiger71

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
17,977
Likes
52,633
AFL Club
Richmond
Agreed - so in this case the police have found insufficient evidence to support a criminal charge.

But you didn't answer my question - Is it actually up to the police or the courts to determine if a crime has been committed?
WOW.

Re read the police statement. They did not say " there was insufficient evidence". They have stated quiet clearly they investigated and are sure nothing criminal happened. There fore the criminal allegation of threat, the police believe did not take place.
 

blackshadow

Premium Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Posts
22,969
Likes
28,184
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Team WADA
Bottom line. Police say " We believe a crime happened based on there evidence" Courts say " We either agree and convict or disagree and dismiss". So police DO determine if a crime has been committed, courts just either enforce the law or dismiss if either the process has not been done correctly or the evidence can be countered.
No - police do not actually determine if a crime is committed, only courts can actually do that.

Police investigate and gather evidence and make a decision to prosecute or not. How hard they investigate and whether there are other factors at play in any incident also influence police investigations.

EDIT - If I was using your logic if the police determined that Dusty had committed a crime we wouldn't need courts as the police have said the crime was committed.
 

Chief

110% sass!
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Posts
72,464
Likes
42,485
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Admin #3,047
Heh ? The police lead a investigation that went on nearly 4 weeks. Are you suggesting they did not test the evidence ? Even though they interviewed all witnesses, including Tracy, analysed the CCTV footage etc ?
The police only present evidence. They don't test it in open court. The other side does that.
 

blackshadow

Premium Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Posts
22,969
Likes
28,184
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Team WADA
WOW.

Re read the police statement. They did not say " there was insufficient evidence". They have stated quiet clearly they investigated and are sure nothing criminal happened. There fore the criminal allegation of threat, the police believe did not take place.
So you'd be happy if the police said that a crime was committed for them to make that decision not a court of law?
 

Tiger71

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
17,977
Likes
52,633
AFL Club
Richmond
No - police do not actually determine if a crime is committed, only courts can actually do that.

Police investigate and gather evidence and make a decision to prosecute or not. How hard they investigate and whether there are other factors at play in any incident also influence police investigations.
Ever hear of the term re trial ?

Courts are founded on due process. They hear evidence yes, but they also analyze actions taken by law enforcement into account. Lets say I shoot someone, but they search my place, find the gun without a warrant. Even though I killed a person i can still walk free.

That is beside the point though .You stated police do not determine if a crime happened. I disagree as no action would be before the courts if the police do not lay charges....due to believing criminal activity took place.

its not that hard
 

Tiger71

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
17,977
Likes
52,633
AFL Club
Richmond
So you'd be happy if the police said that a crime was committed for them to make that decision not a court of law?
Again you are missing the point. Police do that all the time. The courts are there to allow the evidence to be analyzed, process held to account etc.

Police determine if a crime take place. They dont ENFORCE the law

Courts enforce the rule of law.

Again mate, I am just refuting your point that police dont determine a crime takes place as imo that is wrong.
 
Top Bottom