Veitch - lucky his car was well tuned

[Maha]

Did I miss something in the article, was suicide mentioned or intimated - or were you merely musing?

Not musing, I dont muse, merely or otherwise

[forkoil]

Isn't one guilty of committing a crime when they actually commit it, not just when found out and tried?

The way the law works is.....
You get charged, go to court, get judged and if found guilty, THEN you are guilty UNDER THE LAW.
You would have lost your license many times over under your rules Noel.

[cs363]

The way the law works is.....
You get charged, go to court, get judged and if found guilty, THEN you are guilty UNDER THE LAW.
You would have lost your license many times over under your rules Noel.

Exactly - same rules as MNZ, Tour de France, Olympics and a bunch of other sports it ain't cheating unless you get caught....

[The Stranger:Me]

The way the law works is.....
You get charged, go to court, get judged and if found guilty, THEN you are guilty UNDER THE LAW.
You would have lost your license many times over under your rules Noel.

No I wouldn't, because I didn't get caught or convicted - but I'm still bloody guilty of speeding on numerous occasions.

Why the hoo ha over NZ first failing to declare donations?
The statute of limitations (conveniently 6 months) has expired and they didn't get caught within that time frame so it was all legit right?

The post from cs363 sums up the attitude nicely. It aint cheating until you get caught - hello it actually is.
Stretching the rules - well that I accept may be a grey area and a governing body may need to decide.

The difference as I see it is this, someone in this case is a fucken liar.
Now whoever it is ought to bloody own up and take responsibility - it doesn't need a court case to accept responsibility for your actions.

Note, I haven't convicted him, for all I know it may be her that is telling porkies - but one party surely is.

[forkoil]

Yeah I agree but I wasnt alluding to the possibility of his having done it and still having to be convicted, but rather that WE DONT KNOW HE DID. Well we dont, but the media seems to have made up its mind, and thats the core issue here.

[The Stranger:Me]

Yeah I agree but I wasnt alluding to the possibility of his having done it and still having to be convicted, but rather that WE DONT KNOW HE DID. Well we dont, but the media seems to have made up its mind, and thats the core issue here.

I do hear you and I do think it is "A" core issue here.
But I also believe that there is another core issue.
One of personal responsibility, and can't help but wonder if that was addressed by the parties would the other core issue simply disappear?

[devnull]

No I wouldn't, because I didn't get caught or convicted - but I'm still bloody guilty of speeding on numerous occasions.

Why the hoo ha over NZ first failing to declare donations?
The statute of limitations (conveniently 6 months) has expired and they didn't get caught within that time frame so it was all legit right?

The post from cs363 sums up the attitude nicely. It aint cheating until you get caught - hello it actually is.
Stretching the rules - well that I accept may be a grey area and a governing body may need to decide.

The difference as I see it is this, someone in this case is a fucken liar.
Now whoever it is ought to bloody own up and take responsibility - it doesn't need a court case to accept responsibility for your actions.

Note, I haven't convicted him, for all I know it may be her that is telling porkies - but one party surely is.

I would've thought that the first 2 payments of $12k each to her for medical and lost wages, along with getting counselling, AND donating to a womens violence group was pretty much not only accepting responsibility, but going one better by attempting to sort personal issues out so it didn't happen again

The media circus was all about lifting ratings - what other 2 year old suspected crime gets this much media attention?

Helen's forgeries? Heather's conspiring to destroy evidence?

Or even the teen scumbag that dropped an 8kg lump of concrete off an overbridge, instantly killing a 20 year old driver? (Yep, that was 2006, as was the Kahui murders)

Guess the public love witchhunts. No matter what atonement he made, the public want to see someone suffer continuously, until they feel compelled to take their own life.

Lets face it, the public are scum

[The Stranger:Me]

I would've thought that the first 2 payments of $12k each to her for medical and lost wages, along with getting counselling, AND donating to a womens violence group was pretty much not only accepting responsibility, but going one better by attempting to sort personal issues out so it didn't happen again

The media circus was all about lifting ratings - what other 2 year old suspected crime gets this much media attention?

Helen's forgeries? Heather's conspiring to destroy evidence?

Or even the teen scumbag that dropped an 8kg lump of concrete off an overbridge, instantly killing a 20 year old driver? (Yep, that was 2006, as was the Kahui murders)

Guess the public love witchhunts. No matter what atonement he made, the public want to see someone suffer continuously, until they feel compelled to take their own life.

Lets face it, the public are scum

Well perhaps you could assist me to make an informed decision as I am seeing mixed messages. On the one hand you say he accepts it yet apparently his publicist was saying he will "vigorously defend" the charges.

Or are you suggesting that you should be able to buy your way around the law of the land?

Once again, is there something in the quoted article to suggest there was a suicide attempt?

[devnull]

It was reported that after the alleged incident, neither party realised the extent of injury, and after they did, he helped her out regarding lost wages, expenses, etc., and that he voluntarily attended counselling to address his issues.

What I'm pointing out is that the guy actually did more to both look after her as well as get himself sorted than any court would've required.

If police were going to charge you with assault for throwing water, would you put up with that bullshit? We know it'll never stand up in court - it's just a means of applying psychological pressure. As we've seen, it worked. He attempted suicide.

I got the impression that there's a lot more to it than what the media decided to report. I did see another site reported a bit of her background, but then removed it because it breached a suppression order.

The whole sad story has been a media witchhunt from the start.
And to be honest, if someone blackmailed you to the tune of $150k, what would you do?

If this guy is the really monster the media wanted us to believe, wouldn't he have just paid $50k and had the problem permanently removed?

I'd never heard of him before this story broke (not being much of a sports fan), but as it dragged on, I couldn't believe how the guy got crucified by his peers, based mainly on hearsay.

I swear those bastards would eat their own young.

[Tank]

It was reported that after the alleged incident, neither party realised the extent of injury, and after they did, he helped her out regarding lost wages, expenses, etc., and that he voluntarily attended counselling to address his issues.

It wasn't just the one incident - its several. Thats several occasions where he kicked the fuck out of a woman - once breaking her back.

Not a very fucken good job as addressing his issues - he only did that when he 'did the big one' - Wonder what his motivation was? Why didn't he do it after the first few times he supposedly did it?

If police were going to charge you with assault for throwing water, would you put up with that bullshit?

There was some mention of water - but I think you will find - you know with the broken back and all that there was some more serious assaults. But nice of you to look at the one 'stupid statement' and say would you put up with that bullshit?

he only Bullshit is over looking all the other stuff - and referring to it as throwing water. FFS - look at the bigger picture.

We know it'll never stand up in court - it's just a means of applying psychological pressure. As we've seen, it worked. He attempted suicide.

It will never stand up in court - How would you know - you go on about people not knowing the facts - yet here you are saying that its not going to get thru the courts????

Being made to go to court to face charges isnt anything about applying pressure - its about being held to trial.

I got the impression that there's a lot more to it than what the media decided to report.

Probally right

I did see another site reported a bit of her background, but then removed it because it breached a suppression order.

What the fuck has her background got to do with the charges? Its like inferring a girl with a 'friendly' background deserves to be raped? Her background has nothing to do with the incident.

And to be honest, if someone blackmailed you to the tune of $150k, what would you do?

First you say he helped with the money - now its blackmail. So who is the idiot judging the woman guilty of a crime shes not even charged with just based on stuff you have read in the media - talk about double standards!!

[devnull]

It wasn't just the one incident - its several. Thats several occasions where he kicked the fuck out of a woman - once breaking her back.

Not a very fucken good job as addressing his issues - he only did that when he 'did the big one' - Wonder what his motivation was? Why didn't he do it after the first few times he supposedly did it?

Alleged. where's the proof?

There was some mention of water - but I think you will find - you know with the broken back and all that there was some more serious assaults. But nice of you to look at the one 'stupid statement' and say would you put up with that bullshit?

he only Bullshit is over looking all the other stuff - and referring to it as throwing water. FFS - look at the bigger picture.

I am

It will never stand up in court - How would you know - you go on about people not knowing the facts - yet here you are saying that its not going to get thru the courts????

Being made to go to court to face charges isnt anything about applying pressure - its about being held to trial.

FFS. Guess that means I'll have the AOS turn up on the doorstep if I squirt the kids with a garden hose...

What the fuck has her background got to do with the charges? Its like inferring a girl with a 'friendly' background deserves to be raped? Her background has nothing to do with the incident.

Because it's relevant, and your comparison is bullshit.
You might as well have said you think a paedophile shouldn't get a harsher sentence for his/her 3rd conviction, because their past has nothing to do with the current offence.

First you say he helped with the money - now its blackmail. So who is the idiot judging the woman guilty of a crime shes not even charged with just based on stuff you have read in the media - talk about double standards!!

Dude, you got reading difficulties?

There's a big difference between helping out at the time when you realise what's happened, and getting demands from an ex and a tabloid reporter 2 years later...

BTW, "broken back" was sensationalist media hype. If you actually read the impartial piece the Herald ran, it was 2 cracked vertebra that hadn't been noticed initially, even with x-rays. but I guess factual reporting doesn't boost ratings, or get the great unwashed foaming at the mouth

[The Stranger:Me]

Because it's relevant, and your comparison is bullshit.
You might as well have said you think a paedophile shouldn't get a harsher sentence for his/her 3rd conviction, because their past has nothing to do with the current offence.

Actually it's more like you are saying it is the kids fault they were molested.

[devnull]

Actually it's more like you are saying it is the kids fault they were molested.

How do you figure that?

Are you saying that something else, that occured more recently, shouldn't have any bearing or be admissable?

Why?

Isn't that why courts are charged with determining credibility?
Or are everyone's action completely seperate events that have no relationship with each other?

I pointed out that there's a lot more than has been reported, and this witchhunt has been fueled by a media feeding frenzy. Not even journalism - it's playing to the public as a modern day Roman circus.

Sorry, but I don't approve of trial by media - it's complete bullshit designed to give the ignorant some cheap thrills while conveniently ignoring
the damage done. And it's seldom, if ever, accurate.

[The Stranger:Me]

How do you figure that?

Tank was saying that the victims background (in this case) was largely irrelavent.

You however were comparing his position to that of the perp

Because it's relevant, and your comparison is bullshit.
You might as well have said you think a paedophile shouldn't get a harsher sentence for his/her 3rd conviction, because their past has nothing to do with the current offence.

With logic like that I prey you are never on a jury, the poor fucken victim will hang.

[devnull]

With logic like that I prey you are never on a jury, the poor fucken victim will hang.

Dude, if it was one of my kids that was molested, they'd never survive long enough to get to a court...