Walker cleared to play.

The Who said:
Let's digest this Ritchie story for a moment:
It states that Ritchie spoke to the witness.
OK. Then it says there were "shocking details".
Later the witness says "it wasn't great".
Finally it says "the witness doesn't want to speak to the media".
So, where did those 'quotes' come from Dean? And how can "wasn't great" be described as "shocking".
This report should be in No Idea filed under Fake News.
Click to expand...
I suppose they the witnesses are going to say it was shocking and if someone tried to intervene they are more than likely to be told Fuhc off . Nothing new here but a journo turning a moustache into a Ron Jeremy.
 
The Who said:
Let's digest this Ritchie story for a moment:
It states that Ritchie spoke to the witness.
OK. Then it says there were "shocking details".
Later the witness says "it wasn't great".
Finally it says "the witness doesn't want to speak to the media".
So, where did those 'quotes' come from Dean? And how can "wasn't great" be described as "shocking".
This report should be in No Idea filed under Fake News.
Click to expand...
“Shocking details” aren’t great... imagine what might be reported if Dean manages to find a talking witness...
 
Dean Richie trying to sell the story. Sounds like the witness doesn't get along with walker so is deciding to make a case out of it. I cant see it going much further if the fiance has retracted her statement. The cuts could of been from a fall which happened in the heat of the moment during their heated argument, probably some grabbing and Walker losing his temper, but can't see how they would charge him for assault unless he has physical hit her and thrown her to the ground. Hard to know, will have to wait until the 18th to hear the facts
 
Tragic-Eagles said:
If Walker's career survives this incident he is walking on egg shells. He needs to address issues quickly. He is lucky his girl is standing by him.
Click to expand...

I think egg shells are the start of it. Alex's father (being of Balkan background) would probably snap him in two given half a chance. Thin tight rope being navigated by Walks on all fronts
 
Volley said:
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 else would’ve happened. If she thought he intentionally injured her, then she’d tell the police that and they’d charge him and put an AVO on him. Assault often comes down to fear being felt by the victim, is fear not related to someone’s thoughts? Thought processes are a huge component of the legal process and legal issues.

3. Stop reading text books and think about it practically. She had injuries, she claimed he caused them. The only way out of it is if she retracts her statement, and hey, look what has happened.

4. Careful, Greg Bird’s conviction was quashed, meaning he’s innocent under the eyes of the law, and therefore you should be happy he was allowed to play on and have no criminal punishment. On the one hand you didn’t want Greg Bird to be allowed to play even though he’s not guilty of anything, but Walker should be allowed to play pending the result of his court case. So if Walker is found not guilty, you think he should be allowed to continue playing, but Bird was found not guilty and you didn’t want him to be allowed to play. Sounds a bit contradictory to me.
Click to expand...

Wrong, incorrect, and still miles away from reality.

Yes there are injuries, however, that does not justify that a person is guilty of assault or, assault occassioning GBH.

Firstly, assault does not generally come about because the victim experiences fear, it comes about because one person has made intentional contact with another, without consent. An AVO generally comes about because the victim experiences fear.

I thoroughly appreciate your dedicated time in trying to explain to me certain facets of the law, but this is not really necessary.

‘Stop reading textbooks’ yes I am very guilty of this my learned friend, but thanks to all those textbooks I have read, several degrees have been completed. One of those is to represent and give advice to people like you that rely upon opinions, and that are so narrow-minded that believe our legal process is formulated on an individual’s thought process rather than fact and legal
Interpretation.

Very simple really? So according to a witness/s statements that a journo wrote in a newspaper it becomes a clear cut case and it is that simple........ (RUBBISH).

When we pass on a brief to a silk or a Q.C. Did you know that generally the more witnesses that are present, the better it is for our/the client. In cross-examination it is extremely likely that there will be contradicting statements by witnesses and many will rely on (you guessed it) OPINION not what factually occurred. So before speaking nonsense (which I have very little time for) maybe inform yourself.

Does the newspaper article state what happened inside the house before it spilled out onto the street?

Was the witness/s inside the Walker family residence to see how this unfolded from start to end?

Does the jouno or witness know if Walker was threatened with a knife, screwdriver, object, hence he reacted this way?

Did Walker’s partner assault him first inside the house before all this occurred?

Do you, the journo, or the witness/s know if Walker is keeping quiet his side of the story about what happened, because he doesn’t want to lose contact with his child, or get his partner in trouble?

(But I guess it is very easy like you said so I can only assume you must have all these answers).

Finally, it is not I that needs to be careful, rather, your very simplistic/careless opinions are the ones you should be very careful with.

The matter with Bird was quashed (according to you) as I have never had the time to read through all the material. Immediately, if a matter is quashed it is because a previous judgement of guilt has been made and on appeal (rehearing) the matter was quashed. Otherwise if the first trial judge finds the accused ‘not guilty’ it is dismissed.

There are fundamently numerous ways a matter can be quashed

* relevant/irrelevant consideration
* trial judge erred in interpretation and application of the law
* new facts have come about that change the outcome
* A new witness has provided info to the contrary and many many more

The fact it was quashed the ‘mens rea’ could not be proven (intent), but the incident occurred. So maybe instead of trying to educate others on erroneous beliefs, maybe read more textbooks and less newspapers it may assist you in not running in an accussing everyone of a crime based on what you believe.

Have a nice day
 
Urulion, anyone would think you were a lawyer with that grandiose reply. Otherwise, the only other alternative I can think of is that you have been watching too much Suits.

Enjoy your evening learned friend.
 
brad said:
I suppose they the witnesses are going to say it was shocking and if someone tried to intervene they are more than likely to be told Fuhc off . Nothing new here but a journo turning a moustache into a Ron Jeremy.
Click to expand...

Ron the legend hit his fair share of women @:cool:

And yes I do mean that :rofl:
 
urulion said:
Wrong, incorrect, and still miles away from reality.

Yes there are injuries, however, that does not justify that a person is guilty of assault or, assault occassioning GBH.

Firstly, assault does not generally come about because the victim experiences fear, it comes about because one person has made intentional contact with another, without consent. An AVO generally comes about because the victim experiences fear.

I thoroughly appreciate your dedicated time in trying to explain to me certain facets of the law, but this is not really necessary.

‘Stop reading textbooks’ yes I am very guilty of this my learned friend, but thanks to all those textbooks I have read, several degrees have been completed. One of those is to represent and give advice to people like you that rely upon opinions, and that are so narrow-minded that believe our legal process is formulated on an individual’s thought process rather than fact and legal
Interpretation.

Very simple really? So according to a witness/s statements that a journo wrote in a newspaper it becomes a clear cut case and it is that simple........ (RUBBISH).

When we pass on a brief to a silk or a Q.C. Did you know that generally the more witnesses that are present, the better it is for our/the client. In cross-examination it is extremely likely that there will be contradicting statements by witnesses and many will rely on (you guessed it) OPINION not what factually occurred. So before speaking nonsense (which I have very little time for) maybe inform yourself.

Does the newspaper article state what happened inside the house before it spilled out onto the street?

Was the witness/s inside the Walker family residence to see how this unfolded from start to end?

Does the jouno or witness know if Walker was threatened with a knife, screwdriver, object, hence he reacted this way?

Did Walker’s partner assault him first inside the house before all this occurred?

Do you, the journo, or the witness/s know if Walker is keeping quiet his side of the story about what happened, because he doesn’t want to lose contact with his child, or get his partner in trouble?

(But I guess it is very easy like you said so I can only assume you must have all these answers).

Finally, it is not I that needs to be careful, rather, your very simplistic/careless opinions are the ones you should be very careful with.

The matter with Bird was quashed (according to you) as I have never had the time to read through all the material. Immediately, if a matter is quashed it is because a previous judgement of guilt has been made and on appeal (rehearing) the matter was quashed. Otherwise if the first trial judge finds the accused ‘not guilty’ it is dismissed.

There are fundamently numerous ways a matter can be quashed

* relevant/irrelevant consideration
* trial judge erred in interpretation and application of the law
* new facts have come about that change the outcome
* A new witness has provided info to the contrary and many many more

The fact it was quashed the ‘mens rea’ could not be proven (intent), but the incident occurred. So maybe instead of trying to educate others on erroneous beliefs, maybe read more textbooks and less newspapers it may assist you in not running in an accussing everyone of a crime based on what you believe.

Have a nice day
Click to expand...

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 formulate the legal system, I said it’s a huge component of the legal process. Mens rea which you so aptly state is the guilty mind. How can the guilty mind not be related to thought processes? Having a guilty mind is a thought process.

Is Greg Bird guilty or not-guilty of glassing his girlfriend of the time, considering he has not been convicted? You say he shouldn’t have been allowed to play, despite his non conviction of any crime. Double standards because he didn’t play for Manly at the time.

Further note, common assault includes threats of violence, and if the threat causes immediate fear, then that can constitute an assault. Https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/nsw/assault/
 
Last edited:
Mark from Brisbane said:
Just read on that bastion of sports news , Sporting News, that the Police are pressing ahead in the charges with the witness statement and the paramedics statement their proof ( regardless of the retraction).

Again not surprised at this.
Click to expand...
That'd be right. What, does Greenturd have a relative in the cops. First time they'll pursue it for an nrl identity. Oh yeah even the cops gave a only if it's Manly clause
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 479 (members: 0, guests: 479)

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Online statistics

Members online
0
Guests online
479
Total visitors
479
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Latest posts

Newest members

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom