not to me....but who knows what a jury will do.....there are 8 women on that jury and women aren't necessarily favourably disposed to alleged rape victims....Con Gorozidis wrote:Without being in the court room and seeing the evidence it is very hard to judge. Going from very selective and incomplete news reports I think this is very very grey. The question of consent is murky.
Someone above said if he scurried off after the first episode thats an indication he been told no. But after episode one it isnt clear why the victim stayed and why her friend didnt intervene at that stage. This is very murky. 50/50 I reckon.
Court case
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
You got all the evidence already.stinger wrote:not to me....but who knows what a jury will do.....there are 8 women on that jury and women aren't necessarily favourably disposed to alleged rape victims....Con Gorozidis wrote:Without being in the court room and seeing the evidence it is very hard to judge. Going from very selective and incomplete news reports I think this is very very grey. The question of consent is murky.
Someone above said if he scurried off after the first episode thats an indication he been told no. But after episode one it isnt clear why the victim stayed and why her friend didnt intervene at that stage. This is very murky. 50/50 I reckon.
-
SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18650
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1544 times
- Been thanked: 1901 times
I think it'a 55/45 chance of guilty personaly.Con Gorozidis wrote:Without being in the court room and seeing the evidence it is very hard to judge. Going from very selective and incomplete news reports I think this is very very grey. The question of consent is murky.
Someone above said if he scurried off after the first episode thats an indication he been told no. But after episode one it isnt clear why the victim stayed and why her friend didnt intervene at that stage. This is very murky. 50/50 chance of guilty/not guilty I reckon.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
-
Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
you could be rightSaintPav wrote:I think it'a 55/45 chance of guilty personaly.Con Gorozidis wrote:Without being in the court room and seeing the evidence it is very hard to judge. Going from very selective and incomplete news reports I think this is very very grey. The question of consent is murky.
Someone above said if he scurried off after the first episode thats an indication he been told no. But after episode one it isnt clear why the victim stayed and why her friend didnt intervene at that stage. This is very murky. 50/50 chance of guilty/not guilty I reckon.
-
The OtherThommo
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5062
- Joined: Sun 27 Feb 2005 2:30am
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 125 times
I mucked up the quote process, Moods, but this is what you wrote. 'Of course it's not sufficient to say, 'I believed she was consenting' and just proceed along his merry way. That's why I said her actions and behaviour twds him throughout the night will become important. If she was flirting with him during the evening and they kissed as he stated, and this was witnessed, that would go some way to corroborate the fact that he believed that she was consenting later on as he believed that she may have been attracted to him. This is where the other players testimony will become important I believe. If they corroborate the victim, and say that the female barely spoke with Lovett and didn't appear interested from the get go, he could will in trouble I reckon.
I agree with your last paragraph. He may have some issues with why he left the room initially.
P.S. - How do you seek someone's free agreement to have sex Thommo? Sort of takes the romance out of things a little doesn't it? I reckon it's a very grey area unless the sexual assault is clear. It will become an issue of who the jury believes. Lovett says she was consenting and engaging in sex with him. That alone would appear to be freely agreeing I would have thought. I take by this Lovett meant she was awake and was an active participant in the act. The woman says she was out of it and had no idea what was going on. I agree with Evertonfc. It appears from afar that the female was attracted to Gram and believed he was engaged in having sex with her. When she realised it wasn't Gram she flipped (justifiably) What transpired in the initial contact b/w Lovett and the woman will become crucial I reckon.'
And my response.
Her behaviour towards him earlier in the night has little relevance. If she flirted with him, kissed him, danced with him, drank with him - all of little importance. If she had previously had sex with him, even that night, it is not a defence. He cannot run a defence based on belief or assumption emanating from her earlier behaviour. That's why consent to the specific sexual act(s) was introduced. Imagine how difficult it would be to convict anyone of rape if earlier behaviours allowed anyone to assume consent to later acts. No-one would ever be convicted unless evidence of extreme violence was presented. Yes, it's a more complicated in jury trials because the simple principle of freely agreed consent can get lost amid the adversarial judicial system we have (the French, for instance, run what is called an inquisatorial system, I think). But, the judge will clarify the legal relevances to the jury as the trial progresses. That is a key part of the judge's responsibility - to ensure the jury understand what they should consider in their deliberations. It is a never ending process of lawyers trying to introduce diversions to suit their ends and judges clarifying.
Having been a jury foreman in a serious case (not rape) reliant largely on the testimony of one individual, I can attest to the need for judges to constantly reinforce to juries what should, and should not, be considered in their deliberations. As an example, the judge cleared the court after one "I can't remember' from a prosecution witness. The witness had clearly flipped on the DPP. But, when we returned to court the judge explained we could not consider any of what had happened with that witness in our deliberations. I had to take the jury back into the court innumerable times to get the judge to clarify for some jury members what constituted evidence. It took some boneheads about 3 lectures to get the fact that witness testimony IS evidence. Some of 'em thought testimony wasn't evidence - they just wanted one of those CSI coots to appear and flash photos and diagrams. Some of them couldn't get to grips with 'weighing up' the evidence, nor the concept that 'beyond reasonable doubt' does not mean 'no doubt whatsoever'. After about the 8th return to the court to get the judge to clarify something, the judge and I had a nice line of repartee going...But, I digress.
When the events transpired did she freely agree? Was she able to freely agree? That is what it hangs on. The only behaviour of hers that is relevant is that which pertains to her giving consent, freely (which she cannot do if she is significantly impaired or incapacitated), to the acts undertaken.
And, in the case I referred to, the accused was let off. It started out 2 guilty, 10 not, in the jury room. I was one of the 2. We got it to 11 guilty, 1 not, and couldn't budge the last hold out. He never did get past there being no white coated lab person giving evidence. But, the accused was guilty. And, he committed a far more serious crime not 2 months later.
Our system offers greater protections to the accused than it does to victims. It is designed to err on the side of letting the guilty off, lest we lock up one innocent party. And, it achieves that objective. More guilty people go free than innocents get wrongly convicted. But, it's not absolute.
And, romance? Died years ago. Killed by an exploitative media, an all consuming consumerism, a plethora of self help books and a whole lot of self appointed experts telling everyone they had low self esteem, were depressed and had to vacate their psyches if they wanted to be perpetually happy. Me? I reckon a dash of melancholy makes the heart grow fonder.
Sigh.
I agree with your last paragraph. He may have some issues with why he left the room initially.
P.S. - How do you seek someone's free agreement to have sex Thommo? Sort of takes the romance out of things a little doesn't it? I reckon it's a very grey area unless the sexual assault is clear. It will become an issue of who the jury believes. Lovett says she was consenting and engaging in sex with him. That alone would appear to be freely agreeing I would have thought. I take by this Lovett meant she was awake and was an active participant in the act. The woman says she was out of it and had no idea what was going on. I agree with Evertonfc. It appears from afar that the female was attracted to Gram and believed he was engaged in having sex with her. When she realised it wasn't Gram she flipped (justifiably) What transpired in the initial contact b/w Lovett and the woman will become crucial I reckon.'
And my response.
Her behaviour towards him earlier in the night has little relevance. If she flirted with him, kissed him, danced with him, drank with him - all of little importance. If she had previously had sex with him, even that night, it is not a defence. He cannot run a defence based on belief or assumption emanating from her earlier behaviour. That's why consent to the specific sexual act(s) was introduced. Imagine how difficult it would be to convict anyone of rape if earlier behaviours allowed anyone to assume consent to later acts. No-one would ever be convicted unless evidence of extreme violence was presented. Yes, it's a more complicated in jury trials because the simple principle of freely agreed consent can get lost amid the adversarial judicial system we have (the French, for instance, run what is called an inquisatorial system, I think). But, the judge will clarify the legal relevances to the jury as the trial progresses. That is a key part of the judge's responsibility - to ensure the jury understand what they should consider in their deliberations. It is a never ending process of lawyers trying to introduce diversions to suit their ends and judges clarifying.
Having been a jury foreman in a serious case (not rape) reliant largely on the testimony of one individual, I can attest to the need for judges to constantly reinforce to juries what should, and should not, be considered in their deliberations. As an example, the judge cleared the court after one "I can't remember' from a prosecution witness. The witness had clearly flipped on the DPP. But, when we returned to court the judge explained we could not consider any of what had happened with that witness in our deliberations. I had to take the jury back into the court innumerable times to get the judge to clarify for some jury members what constituted evidence. It took some boneheads about 3 lectures to get the fact that witness testimony IS evidence. Some of 'em thought testimony wasn't evidence - they just wanted one of those CSI coots to appear and flash photos and diagrams. Some of them couldn't get to grips with 'weighing up' the evidence, nor the concept that 'beyond reasonable doubt' does not mean 'no doubt whatsoever'. After about the 8th return to the court to get the judge to clarify something, the judge and I had a nice line of repartee going...But, I digress.
When the events transpired did she freely agree? Was she able to freely agree? That is what it hangs on. The only behaviour of hers that is relevant is that which pertains to her giving consent, freely (which she cannot do if she is significantly impaired or incapacitated), to the acts undertaken.
And, in the case I referred to, the accused was let off. It started out 2 guilty, 10 not, in the jury room. I was one of the 2. We got it to 11 guilty, 1 not, and couldn't budge the last hold out. He never did get past there being no white coated lab person giving evidence. But, the accused was guilty. And, he committed a far more serious crime not 2 months later.
Our system offers greater protections to the accused than it does to victims. It is designed to err on the side of letting the guilty off, lest we lock up one innocent party. And, it achieves that objective. More guilty people go free than innocents get wrongly convicted. But, it's not absolute.
And, romance? Died years ago. Killed by an exploitative media, an all consuming consumerism, a plethora of self help books and a whole lot of self appointed experts telling everyone they had low self esteem, were depressed and had to vacate their psyches if they wanted to be perpetually happy. Me? I reckon a dash of melancholy makes the heart grow fonder.
Sigh.
'I have no new illusions, and I have no old illusions' - Vladimir Putin, Geneva, June 2021
Sorry, put the dot in the wrong place, i was always crap a decimals at school. Total agree 0.18 is pissed in anyone's language.stinger wrote:0.18....not ..018...a girl at that level, you would expect to be pretty pissed....ando051 wrote:Has it already been reported that the alleged victim had a alcohol ready of 0.018, which would be up near the 12 drink mark.
The big evidence of the events of the night will come from Mini as it was reported he was the designated drive and was sober.
A very sad case there will be no winners at all.
-
Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5083
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 252 times
- Been thanked: 270 times
I think I haven't made the point of my question clear enough Stinger. I am not asking about being drunk being an excuse for criminal behaviour.
Scenario: guy meets girl at pub and they are both intoxicated and they have sex.
Next day she say I was raped, I never wanted to have sex I was just so drunk I didn't realise what was going on.
Points: The law says she wasn't in a fit state to give reasoned consent due to impaired judgement.
He says, everything seemed fine, she was into it, she never said no. I was really drunk but I reckon I would know if a girl was not giving me a green light.
Question: The onus is being put on the guy to determine the state of mind of the girl and determine that she is not in a fit state despite being drunk. Is he not now being made accountable for her actions in getting drunk, and is his action in getting drunk not being treated differently?
Sorry to labour the point, but as a side issue I really don't get why intoxication can be used to dimiss one's ability to make a judgement but be discounted in the other's case.
Scenario: guy meets girl at pub and they are both intoxicated and they have sex.
Next day she say I was raped, I never wanted to have sex I was just so drunk I didn't realise what was going on.
Points: The law says she wasn't in a fit state to give reasoned consent due to impaired judgement.
He says, everything seemed fine, she was into it, she never said no. I was really drunk but I reckon I would know if a girl was not giving me a green light.
Question: The onus is being put on the guy to determine the state of mind of the girl and determine that she is not in a fit state despite being drunk. Is he not now being made accountable for her actions in getting drunk, and is his action in getting drunk not being treated differently?
Sorry to labour the point, but as a side issue I really don't get why intoxication can be used to dimiss one's ability to make a judgement but be discounted in the other's case.
-
Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5083
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 252 times
- Been thanked: 270 times
I think I haven't made the point of my question clear enough Stinger. I am not asking about being drunk being an excuse for criminal behaviour.
Scenario: guy meets girl at pub and they are both intoxicated and they have sex.
Next day she say I was raped, I never wanted to have sex I was just so drunk I didn't realise what was going on.
Points: The law says she wasn't in a fit state to give reasoned consent due to impaired judgement.
He says, everything seemed fine, she was into it, she never said no. I was really drunk but I reckon I would know if a girl was not giving me a green light.
Question: The onus is being put on the guy to determine the state of mind of the girl and determine that she is not in a fit state despite being drunk. Is he not now being made accountable for her actions in getting drunk, and is his action in getting drunk not being treated differently?
Sorry to labour the point, but as a side issue I really don't get why intoxication can be used to dimiss one's ability to make a judgement but be discounted in the other's case.
Scenario: guy meets girl at pub and they are both intoxicated and they have sex.
Next day she say I was raped, I never wanted to have sex I was just so drunk I didn't realise what was going on.
Points: The law says she wasn't in a fit state to give reasoned consent due to impaired judgement.
He says, everything seemed fine, she was into it, she never said no. I was really drunk but I reckon I would know if a girl was not giving me a green light.
Question: The onus is being put on the guy to determine the state of mind of the girl and determine that she is not in a fit state despite being drunk. Is he not now being made accountable for her actions in getting drunk, and is his action in getting drunk not being treated differently?
Sorry to labour the point, but as a side issue I really don't get why intoxication can be used to dimiss one's ability to make a judgement but be discounted in the other's case.
-
Moods
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4831
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 315 times
- Been thanked: 442 times
How has her behaviour have little relevance? If it had so little relevance why do defence barristers make so much of what the victim was wearing on the night, and whether she was seen holding hands with the accused etc etc. It's relevant b/c it goes to show her state of mind prior to the act. Now I know that regardless of whether they are even husband and wife, consent has to be given. Sometimes consent is given in numerous forms. By merely showing/expressing enjoyment to the sexual act is considered consent depending on the circumstances I reckon. No court would expect Lovett or anyone else to say, 'Is this ok, are you alright with this? Can I keep going?' As soon as the female (or one party) expresses some type of behaviour that would indicate consent withdrawn, then the other party must stop. ie 'I'm not comfortable with this, can we stop.' Or "Stop you're hurting me.' Or 'I don't want to go that far.'
I reckon it holds a lot of relevance previous behaviour. For instance if it can be proven that they had been kissing, and she was flirting with him prior to going home and she has given testimony to the contrary, it would indicate to me that she is lying or trying to hide something. Once a witness starts to lie, you have to wonder what else they are lying about or trying to hide. If she'll lie about something so trivial, then she'll have no problem lying about the major thing. This goes double for Lovett. If it can be shown she never expressed any interest throughout the night and barely spoke to him and he has testified the opposite, you would have to wonder why he would tell such lies - (Obviously to build a case that the woman was attracted to him all along) If it wasn't relevant to the case, then I'm not sure why either party would pay so much attention to it during the evidence. They would merely discuss what happened in the bedroom.
I reckon it holds a lot of relevance previous behaviour. For instance if it can be proven that they had been kissing, and she was flirting with him prior to going home and she has given testimony to the contrary, it would indicate to me that she is lying or trying to hide something. Once a witness starts to lie, you have to wonder what else they are lying about or trying to hide. If she'll lie about something so trivial, then she'll have no problem lying about the major thing. This goes double for Lovett. If it can be shown she never expressed any interest throughout the night and barely spoke to him and he has testified the opposite, you would have to wonder why he would tell such lies - (Obviously to build a case that the woman was attracted to him all along) If it wasn't relevant to the case, then I'm not sure why either party would pay so much attention to it during the evidence. They would merely discuss what happened in the bedroom.
-
Bernard Shakey
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11227
- Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007 11:22pm
- Location: Down By The River 1989, 2003, 2009 & 2013
- Has thanked: 117 times
- Been thanked: 135 times
-
Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
-
terry smith rules
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2512
- Joined: Mon 27 Jun 2005 1:27pm
- Location: Abiding
- Has thanked: 169 times
- Been thanked: 369 times
-
perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8991
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 59 times
- Been thanked: 343 times
-
saintspremiers
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
-
saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
the journos are doing a good job at following the Judges orders.
forget they are footballers
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-n ... 6094626888
so does this mean we have a spare spot on the team list for Saturday?
forget they are footballers
Lovett collapsed, says ex Saint
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-n ... 6094626888
so does this mean we have a spare spot on the team list for Saturday?
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
-
Moccha
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4528
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 3:33pm
- Location: Two Pronged Attack
- Contact:
You could be wrongCon Gorozidis wrote:you could be rightSaintPav wrote:I think it'a 55/45 chance of guilty personaly.Con Gorozidis wrote:Without being in the court room and seeing the evidence it is very hard to judge. Going from very selective and incomplete news reports I think this is very very grey. The question of consent is murky.
Someone above said if he scurried off after the first episode thats an indication he been told no. But after episode one it isnt clear why the victim stayed and why her friend didnt intervene at that stage. This is very murky. 50/50 chance of guilty/not guilty I reckon.
Another opportunity awaits!
-
Bernard Shakey
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11227
- Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007 11:22pm
- Location: Down By The River 1989, 2003, 2009 & 2013
- Has thanked: 117 times
- Been thanked: 135 times
Not judge's orders. She instructed the jury to forget they are footballers, not the media.saintbrat wrote:the journos are doing a good job at following the Judges orders.
forget they are footballersLovett collapsed, says ex Saint
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-n ... 6094626888
so does this mean we have a spare spot on the team list for Saturday? :? :shock:
Old enough to repaint, but young enough to sell
spot on.....it's just that a couple of little hitlers on here have a different view....ignore them ....imhfo....Moccha wrote:It's just one opinion of many and there's also something called freedom of speechBernard Shakey wrote:There is a trial in progress. I don't think this thread adds anything towards justice being served and should be shut down.
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16621
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3492 times
- Been thanked: 2762 times
consent to me is clearly not a grey area at all (based on what I've read which makes me no expert)
when she has been alert/conscious/not impaired, she denies black and blue that she was consenting
her behavior reflects that of someone intoxicated and makes aspects of it a bit cloudy but I think in cases like this, the pieces never fit together too perfectly
are ppl suggesting that she consented, changed her mind after, then decided to charge AL as a result of the regret..? Has happened in the past i think
when she has been alert/conscious/not impaired, she denies black and blue that she was consenting
her behavior reflects that of someone intoxicated and makes aspects of it a bit cloudy but I think in cases like this, the pieces never fit together too perfectly
are ppl suggesting that she consented, changed her mind after, then decided to charge AL as a result of the regret..? Has happened in the past i think
matrix wrote:hitler calling someone little hitlers
lol
you still here gosling????...thought you had f***ed off, as i hadn't noticed any of you attempted little digs for the past month or so....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
GrumpyOne
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8163
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
- Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne
Definately one of the options.skeptic wrote:consent to me is clearly not a grey area at all (based on what I've read which makes me no expert)
when she has been alert/conscious/not impaired, she denies black and blue that she was consenting
her behavior reflects that of someone intoxicated and makes aspects of it a bit cloudy but I think in cases like this, the pieces never fit together too perfectly
are ppl suggesting that she consented, changed her mind after, then decided to charge AL as a result of the regret..? Has happened in the past i think
Pleased I am not on that jury..... guaranteed sleepless nights.
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12720
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 736 times
- Been thanked: 404 times
Interesting media reports today regarding the testimony of 'witness x' - cannot be named for fear of identifying the victim.
Unblelievable how we never manage to find ourselves in the situation of not being named!
The media may not name this particular person but his name is well known around town.
It was widely reported at the time of the incident.
Unblelievable how we never manage to find ourselves in the situation of not being named!
The media may not name this particular person but his name is well known around town.
It was widely reported at the time of the incident.