Post: #1

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/afl-fo...le37o.html

TL;DR - Junior Aussie football player accused of rape occurring in 2007 when he was 16 and she was 15 cleared before a court of law.
Accuser alleged to have been pressured by current boyfriend now that he is earning somewhat decent dollars.
Woman's identity is suppressed as she was a minor at the time, but his reputation has been tainted.

Quote:North Melbourne footballer Majak Daw says he can "get through anything in life" after being acquitted of three rape charges by a County Court jury.

The relief among Mr Daw's supporters was plain to see when the jury found him not guilty of raping a 15-year-old girl in 2007, when he was 16, as family members and friends cried. Outside court Mr Daw's father, William, crossed himself and cried "Hallelujah".

The footballer was more restrained, but put a hand to his eyes when the jury of seven women and five men delivered the last of the three verdicts, a day after deliberations began. Soon after, Mr Daw smiled as he fronted a large media pack to describe the trial as a "tough time, a tough nine days".

"I just want to thank all my family and friends for being here for me," he said.

"I've been through this, I can get through anything in life."

As a refugee from war-torn Sudan and a footballer recruited as a teenager and appointed by the AFL as a multicultural ambassador well before the first of his 16 league games, Mr Daw, now 24, has had his share of public attention.

That interest never abated during his trial, even though judge Mark Dean stressed to the jurors the case had nothing to do with Mr Daw's background or current employment. As defence counsel David Sexton said, this was "a trial about children".

Mr Daw was accused of raping the girl - who he went to school with - orally, digitally and vaginally in a reserve behind a house party in Altona Meadows in March 2007, after they left the party together.

The complainant last week alleged Mr Daw restrained her, put a hand over her mouth and stroked her face and said: "It's going to be OK."

Mr Daw on Monday told the jury some sexual activity took place, but that what occurred was consensual. He denied vaginal intercourse occurred. In pleading not guilty to the charges, Mr Daw maintained the complainant did not cry or scream and was "in control" when she initiated the activity.

"I thought she was very much in control," he told the jury. "She initiated it. I was happy enough to be engaging. We were both kissing ... she was very happy to be doing this."

Prosecutor Andrew McKenry later urged the jury to put aside the footballer's evidence because it appeared scripted, too rehearsed and implausible.

In response, Mr Sexton said his client's evidence was straightforward and unvarnished, that Mr Daw had not been evasive during 75 minutes in the witness box and told the truth

Mr Sexton said there were "too many unanswered questions" over the complainant's evidence, as she had "chopped and changed" her account to three police officers in 2007 and a fourth investigator last year. She failed to mention some alleged offending when she first spoke to police, he said.

The trial heard the complainant's friend came across the pair while searching for the girl. She told the jury she heard crying and saw Mr Daw lying on the complainant.

But Mr Sexton told the jury not to over-value the friend's evidence, as it was "entirely plausible" she had only seen a consensual act. The complainant and friend cannot be named for legal reasons.

The court heard the girls drank Vodka Cruisers at the party and Mr Daw drank two cans of bourbon and Coke, although the trio all told the jury the alcohol had no effect on them. Several other party-goers admitted they had felt the effects of alcohol that night.

The complainant said police were called in the months afterwards, after she began crying in class and her teacher asked if she was OK.

She decided against pursuing the matter in 2007 because she wanted to pretend it never happened and didn't want Mr Daw to get in trouble. She contacted police last year after experiencing nightmares, and thought making a report would help.

Mr Sexton said the friend had pressured the complainant to report the matter in 2007, and the complainant, now 24, was pressured last year by her then boyfriend, at a time when Mr Daw enjoyed the profile of an AFL player. He was arrested in May last year.

Mr McKenry said there was no foundation to Mr Sexton's suggestions.

Mr Daw played only two AFL games in 2015 and was delisted in October, but was last week re-drafted onto North's rookie list.

His manager, Adam Ramanauskas, and several North officials were in court as supporters swamped Mr Daw adjourned the court.

Post: #2

It took 8 years to clear his name?

Post: #3

(12-03-2015 12:51 PM)CleanSlate Wrote:  It took 8 years to clear his name?

Sadly yes.

Post: #4

Quote:I've been accused of being a rapist since I was 16.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-03/ma...pe/6995204

Post: #5

In this oh so P.C. world (Australia very much inclusive), I'm quite impressed by the defending lawyers language.

Post: #6

(12-03-2015 12:53 PM)Ricardo735 Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 12:51 PM)CleanSlate Wrote:  It took 8 years to clear his name?

Sadly yes.

Sadly no. You can't unring the bell, and this will affect all his future contracts and endorsement deals.

Post: #7

(12-03-2015 12:51 PM)CleanSlate Wrote:  It took 8 years to clear his name?

Not exactly. The article itself says it's alleged as happening in 2007, but she didn't report it to the police until "last year", i.e. 2014. And did so because "she thought it would help with some nightmares she was having".

Post: #8

What's troubling is that no one in the media is calling out this insanity for what it is.

Seven years after something allegedly happened, you can press charges. Huh? Anyone who has studied memory knows that what you remember changes as the years pass. (Rather than include a link, I urge all of you to Google "memories change over time" with no quotes to see the myriad of info on this.)

Anyway, what you might remember as happening seven years ago is likely not to be the way you remember it.

This is starting to get like the recovered memory (or "repressed memory") hoaxes of the early 1990s, where psychologists of questionable morals were goading women into "remembering" they were molested as children by their fathers. The lives of innocent men were ruined by this -- and if you want to read some disturbing stories, do some internet searches.

We don't seem to have progressed much as a culture since then. Wonder if I claimed someone stole some money from me back in 2008 if the courts would allow a civil suit?

Post: #9

Having a bug out bag with $10,000 and a fake passport doesn't sound so crazy these days.

I can imagine nearly all of us with a slightly high notch count can think of at least 1 girl who is crazy enough, and dislikes us enough, to pull something like this.

Post: #10

The amusing part being that her partner probably had no financial incentive at all to push her going to the cops with this. He probably merely thought he was being a supportive, white knight boyfriend who was helping his girlfriend stand up for all women at large.

Post: #11

I am proud of this man and impressed by his frame.


Ps. Anyone else who has seen Chris Lilley's 'Angry Boys' getting a mental image of Ja'ime King when picturing this little strumpet? Para? Anyone?

Post: #12

(12-03-2015 10:31 PM)Conscious Pirate Wrote:  I am proud of this man and impressed by his frame.


Ps. Anyone else who has seen Chris Lilley's 'Angry Boys' getting a mental image of Ja'ime King when picturing this little strumpet? Para? Anyone?

Ja'ime King is brilliant social commentary, but it's his Samoan kid impression that beats it out. Especially when the kid alleges he's been raped and his father comes into the office.

Post: #13

(12-03-2015 09:34 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 12:51 PM)CleanSlate Wrote:  It took 8 years to clear his name?

Not exactly. The article itself says it's alleged as happening in 2007, but she didn't report it to the police until "last year", i.e. 2014. And did so because "she thought it would help with some nightmares she was having".

My bad - didn't read carefully.

But this is even worse! Getting a false rape accusation SEVEN years after the fact, and people still automatically believe what the girl says.

Madness!

Post: #14

My bad too - thank you for clarifying Paracelsus.

I had erroneously assumed that he had been interviewed at that time as part of the initial report.

Post: #15

(12-03-2015 09:43 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  What's troubling is that no one in the media is calling out this insanity for what it is.

Seven years after something allegedly happened, you can press charges. Huh? Anyone who has studied memory knows that what you remember changes as the years pass. (Rather than include a link, I urge all of you to Google "memories change over time" with no quotes to see the myriad of info on this.)

Anyway, what you might remember as happening seven years ago is likely not to be the way you remember it.

This is starting to get like the recovered memory (or "repressed memory") hoaxes of the early 1990s, where psychologists of questionable morals were goading women into "remembering" they were molested as children by their fathers. The lives of innocent men were ruined by this -- and if you want to read some disturbing stories, do some internet searches.

We don't seem to have progressed much as a culture since then. Wonder if I claimed someone stole some money from me back in 2008 if the courts would allow a civil suit?

Most common law jurisdictions have a statute of limitations on civil and some criminal matters (with exclusions such as murder), whereby matters can only be brought to the court's attention if they occur within a certain period of time of the event occurring. The legal principle is based upon the point you raised - in that evidence (both physical and eyewitness accounts) can deteriorate over time.

Post: #16

(12-03-2015 11:34 PM)Ricardo735 Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 09:43 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  What's troubling is that no one in the media is calling out this insanity for what it is.

Seven years after something allegedly happened, you can press charges. Huh? Anyone who has studied memory knows that what you remember changes as the years pass. (Rather than include a link, I urge all of you to Google "memories change over time" with no quotes to see the myriad of info on this.)

Anyway, what you might remember as happening seven years ago is likely not to be the way you remember it.

This is starting to get like the recovered memory (or "repressed memory") hoaxes of the early 1990s, where psychologists of questionable morals were goading women into "remembering" they were molested as children by their fathers. The lives of innocent men were ruined by this -- and if you want to read some disturbing stories, do some internet searches.

We don't seem to have progressed much as a culture since then. Wonder if I claimed someone stole some money from me back in 2008 if the courts would allow a civil suit?

Most common law jurisdictions have a statute of limitations on civil and some criminal matters (with exclusions such as murder), whereby matters can only be brought to the court's attention if they occur within a certain period of time of the event occurring. The legal principle is based upon the point you raised - in that evidence (both physical and eyewitness accounts) can deteriorate over time.

Example: For years, my younger brother was cold to my grandfather because of "the way he treated mom."

So I asked him what the problem was. He remembered an incident where we were at dinner and my grandfather looked at my mother and started picking out her grey hairs in front of everyone: "There's one! And another! And another!"

This did happen. The only problem is that it had happened on a rerun of an old show we used to watch called "My Three Sons." The scenario took place between the older guy, Uncle Charlie, and one of the sons' wives, Katie. My grandfather was a lot like Uncle Charlie and my mother was like a brunette version of Katie, so I can see how this would have gotten mixed up in his mind. Still, the incident hadn't happened in real life.

Memory is more like an improvisational musician than a CD or an MP3. It sometimes takes artistic liberties. It's not going to be a pleasant world if they do away with statutes of limitations and allow this kind of thing into courtrooms.

After I told my brother this, he was a lot nicer to my grandfather. Had I not spoken up, everyone else would have thought this incident was real too, because my brother had told them the way he'd "remembered" it.

Post: #17

Any criminal lawyer -- hell, any lawyer -- can tell you that human memory is horribly fallible. And it doesn't get any better with time.

As an aside, eyewitness identification of a suspect in particular is fraught with error. The stereotypical moment in any TV drama's trial is when the victim is asked to point out the person who did horrible things to her, and she always points at the accused. This is a ridiculous concept, explicitly forbidden in every Western court outside the US simply because the circumstances and psychology compel the person to identify the person sitting accused of the crime, whether or not they actually did it.

Mistaken identification has been the cause of more wrongful convictions than virtually any other event (leaving aside bullied confessions which is another story). In British courts, whenever an eyewitness identification forms part of the evidence of a crime, the judge is all but required to give the jury a Domican (or Turnbull) warning: a long explanation of how eyewitness identification can and often is mistaken, and that the jury would not be convicting the person safely if they choose to convict on eyewitness evidence alone.

More relevantly, the moment at which a memory is best recalled is very shortly after the incident concerned. But here's the thing: unless you're trained (as police are) to take note of and recall details, and unless you take the time to go and record those details and refresh your memory regularly of that event, very little of the actual incident goes into long-term recall ... with the added complication that your mind then begins to fill in the blanks with made-up material as time goes on. Always be suspect of a person who tells you a story of what happened in great detail a long time after the event took place - categorically I can tell you there is not one form of human memory that gets better with time.

Post: #18

The biggest thing that Majak has going for him in the court of public opinion is that he's a minority and a refugee. If he'd been white the usual suspects would have appeared to denounce him like with the St Kilda players a couple of years back. But because he's black what were the leftists and feminists to do? It must have been a real conundrum for them.

It has actually amazed me how little commentary there has been over his trial. Normally something like this would have had columnists and bloggers all over Melbourne in a froth.

Post: #19

/thread-51456...pid1152964

(11-19-2015 01:07 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(11-19-2015 12:44 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

Actually yes...I am having a system installed next week for several reasons. Admittedly one is to defend myself from possible false rape charges as the overwhelming majority of girls I bang are at my house, pulled from local bars. I have too much at risk if one of them decides I didnt fuck her right, disrespected her, cant admit she intentionally cheated on her BF. etc . My corporate attorney referred me to a criminal defense attorney and he strongly advocated this. He is currently on retainer with a local pro sports team and this one of the risk management techniques he recommends to athletes and high net worth individuals. (He has stories!) The caveat is that as long as the recording is never made public or used for commercial purposes without everyone's permission it's perfectly legal.

At his suggestion I'meven posting signs on my property grounds and one in my bedroom (nicely framed of course)

Edit: The attorney actually provides his clients with a "Sexual Consent Agreement" that he advises everyone have the chicks sign (especially the pro athletes...he acknowledges that it's not realistic for an average non athlete/ celebrity type) It's pretty funny as it's essentially a detailed "menu" form where the chick checks off what she's willing to do:

Oral sex (give)..."check"
Oral sex (receive)..."check"
Receive ejaculate in mouth..."check"
Anal......................"check"
Group sex..............."check"
Etc, etc....

He teaches a whole protocol where the guy copies her ID. There's even a questionnaire about age, number sex partners, etc....and bitches do all of it just to get some pro/fame cock.

He says the clients that follow his protocol, get this signed, in advance (of course), and on video, never have a problem. The ones that don't end up paying "hush money" fairly regularly though it never hits the press

Post: #20

What's up with these prosecutors doing everything in their power to send a kid away for a long time based on flimsy evidence?

Do they not care about the objective reality and what actually happened whatsoever?

Do they have no compunction about ruining lives just for the "notch" of a successful conviction?

Post: #21

(12-04-2015 01:57 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  What's up with these prosecutors doing everything in their power to send a kid away for a long time based on flimsy evidence?

Do they not care about the objective reality and what actually happened whatsoever?

Do they have no compunction about ruining lives just for the "notch" of a successful conviction?

It's a little more nuanced than that.

In an ideal world, a prosecutor does care about the objective reality of what happened and makes an independent judgment about whether or not there's enough evidence to send to a jury. They are meant to make those sorts of decisions if only because the court system is clogged like a 60 year old smoker's arteries and trials cost literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to run; a prosecutor is meant to make an actual judgment about whether a given case is in "the public interest" before throwing an accused person in front of a jury to face an allegation. When you hear a prosecutor has declined to send a matter to a jury because there's "not enough evidence", this is basically what's happened, along with an assessment of the evidence and whether it really has reasonable prospects of convicting someone.

In the real world, politics intervenes. Especially with rape cases (and child abuse cases), the case falls into the hands, not infrequently, of one of the following types of prosecutor:

(1) One who is scared shitless of being criticised as a woman hater, rape apologist, or misogynist, no matter how flimsy the evidence is. You will hear such prosecutors referring to their insane decision to take a matter to trial as "leaving it to the jury to decide," even if the evidence is flimsy - because they want the blame for the acquittal to go on the jury, not on them.

(2) A relatively junior prosecutor within a Public Prosecutions Directorate who is assigned a case and told to run it by his superiors, even if it's a piece of shit prosecution that won't get up. In theory a prosecutor exercises independent discretion and could theoretically say "Look, I'm not comfortable with the level of evidence on this, I'm not going to run it, sorry" ... but a prosecutions department is a government bureaucracy, and the structure and potential for advancement usually is pyramidal and amounts to a single-elimination suck-up tournament amongst its prosecutors for the juiciest, high-paying roles. Lower level prosecutors are little more than government functionaries, and must survive as Good Corporate Men just as their counterparts in big corporations do: by towing the line and doing exactly what the fuck they're told to do.

(3) A female prosecutor with a really bad hard-on against men and who thinks the best way to beat men is to out-chest-beat, out-testosterone, and out-convict any other man in the directorate. Not infrequently it's overcompensating for the disgust of the big burly police officers who present the cases for them to prosecute (and who often have disturbing ideological if not personal commitments to putting innocent people in jail.) These prosecutors are nightmares because they are committed both careerwise and ideologically to the poor bastard's conviction, and (in some notable cases) see dirty tricks or "on the line" conduct against defence counsel as perfectly legitimate in a court because they're going after a "scumbag". These ones lose sight entirely of the fact that the government is meant to be a model litigant and it isn't meant to push relentlessly for a conviction, but rather is meant to simply present the evidence for the jury's consideration. At some times this sort of conduct gets to be cultural or institutional within a prosecutions department, and it takes a few notable wrongful convictions for the culture to change ... for a time.