Typical lawyer speak, misquotes, playing with words. Smoke and mirrors.
I never said injuries alone mean guilt, but you state I said such a thing. I said that injuries consistent with the victims statement essentially proves guilt in a he said/she said situation.
I never said thought processes...
1. There are injuries and if her story of events is consistent with the injuries present, then guilt is essentially proven in a he said/she said situation.
2. Pretty simple really, if she thought her injuries were due to an accident, then she probably would’ve told the police this and nothing...
She’s got injuries and an AVO has been taken out on him and he’s been charged. The fiancée obviously thinks he’s responsible. The only way he’s found not guilty here is if she changes her mind, à la Greg Bird’s girlfriend. You were happy Greg Bird was allowed to play on, because the justice...
Should the default position be to not believe what the female in a domestic relationship says happened? No wonder victims often struggle to come forward.
She’s got injuries and he’s been charged, so it’s clear she hasn’t said it was just an accident.
Manly need to make a statement. They need to sack him; domestic violence is abhorrent. It’s far too common and it doesn’t help that NRL players seem (the good ones anyway) to get off relatively scot-free.
I wonder if the broken hand a few years ago was all that it was reported to be.