Again the alternative is that the evidence was insufficient to determine that an offence took place. They are the same thing.
.
They are not "the same thing". The police did get evidence, they reviewed CCTV footage and spoke to all parties involved, including numerous independent witnesses. The evidence they uncovered was indicative that NO offence had been committed. I have never seen a more definitive statement from VICPOL before regarding a the innocence of a person being investigated. The police generally like to leave some wriggle room just in case further evidence is found.
If you can find one other Victoria Police statement that is so emphatic about there not being a crime committed please send a link. You might try looking at some catholic priest pedo cases, they sometimes used the phrase "no offences disclosed".
There was no charge. There was no review of evidence in open court. That's a red herring.
How can there be a review of incriminating evidence if that evidence does not exist? Police have heresay evidence of what a woman told reporters, none of what the "victim" alleges is admissable in court because she is unprepared to make a statement subject to perjury provisions. It would be a complete waste of time for this to go to court, even if the "victim" did decide to make a statement. The Police have stated that after reviewing all of the other evidence "investigators determined that no criminal offence took place." They didn't say it couldn't be proven, or there was insufficient evidence for a charge they said "no criminal offence took place"
Ask yourself:
Why was he kicked out of the restaurant?
Why were his mates urgently dragging him away from the lady?
Why didn't he ask his mate(s) fill in the gaps in his memory?
.
We do not need to ask ourselves those questions because It is reasonable to assume that those questions were asked by the Police, and they have determined that "no criminal offence took place"
I can't see an exoneration. I can't see anything that is proven or not proven. It is an unsatisfying end, but if everyone is leaving it at that then we have to live with not knowing.
The only reason to have found this an unsatisfying end is if you were hoping for Martin to go to Court, which is not going to happen if there is no prima facie evidence to support a charge, let alone a guilty verdict.
The ONLY evidence that indicates Martin has assaulted anyone is from a person who is not prepared to make a statement admissable in court. Yet she is prepared to besmirch his name by going to the media and contacting his employers.
I'm not prepared to call "Tracey" a liar, she might have been trying to do Martin a favour by going to the Club, but if she is going to do interviews with the media it is only fair that she speak to Police. Martin has had his character questioned and has been denied the right to face his accuser in court because she refused to make those same statements under oath.
Of course he has been exonerated, and there could not be a clearer outcome save "Tracey" being sued for slander. This would be an awful outcome, violence against women ought to be reported.
I initially thought Martin was a numpty bogan who has behaved appallingly and assaulted a brave woman who had the temerity to ask him to moderate his loutish behaviour. Now I think he is a victim.