Liam Jurrah facing 4 extra charges

[LBJ6]

Dane Swan was allowed to play after he and others made an innocent cleaner a vegetable.

Apparently, Liam Jurrah isn't allowed to play after he allegedly (or the other co-accused) inflicted 6 stitches on Basil Jurrah.

The media are not even reporting there was a machete used anymore. Shows how reliable the information coming out has been.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

You don't though. In every thread...

I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your suggestion.

PS- Means you're wrong.

 

[Daytripper]

To use an extreme example, would you support a club 'standing by' a player charged with homicide?

Do Melbourne supporters and the bleeding hearts even consider how close Jurrah could have come to killing someone?

This wasn't a fist fight in a pub.

It was a machete to the head..

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

^ That last poster sounds so gosh-darn certain.

Whereas...

The media are not even reporting there was a machete used anymore. Shows how reliable the information coming out has been.

Exactly.

 

[LBJ6]

It was a machete to the head..

It was, was it?

Firslty, how do you know it was a machete? Don't you think a machete to the head would cause more than 6 stitches? Maybe that's why they are reporting now that it was likely a 'nulla nulla hunting stick'.

Secondly, how do you know it was Jurrah that hit him and not the co accused?

This forum has a lot of idiotic people, that's for sure.

 

[Forward Press]

^ That last poster sounds so gosh-darn certain.

Whereas...



Exactly.

Great once again.

Now how does the non-use of a machete deflect away from the seriousness of the charges laid against him? Someone mentioned earlier that the maximum punishment is 14 years jail if found guilty - is that also wrong?

 

[Jef Costello]

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But if a player went postal and shot 3 innocent people in a nightclub incident for example, noone could argue that he wouldnt be stood down immediately even though he was technically "innocent until proven guilty" I am not trying to associate Jurrah's actions with the above example but what I am illustrating is an extreme example where every club would sack the player immediately.

The court would not provide bail in such a circumstance, the person would be remanded until their trial.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Great once again.

Now how does the non-use of a machete deflect away from the seriousness of the charges laid against him? Someone mentioned earlier that the maximum punishment is 14 years jail if found guilty - is that also wrong?

14 years maximum for a combined total of 6 offences?

 

[yaco55]

Hardly, Richmond suspended Connors a couple years back for I think it was 8 weeks for having one to many drinks at the hotel after a loss in Sydney, we then suspended him again during the pre-season this year and he didn't attend our training camp over seas.

IMO by Melbourne allowing Jurrah to play this week given his circumstances (Whether he be innocent or otherwise) sends the wrong type of message to the playing group.

Agree.

Dont understand why Sylvia was suspended for one week for drinking, nothwithstanding Sylvia's past record, but it was in the off-season.

But Jurrah no suspension.

Sylvia must be shaking his head.

 

[yaco55]

- Jurrah is, to a point, one of the stars of the game. Most highlight reels produced of the game show him flying for a mark. He's exciting as all hell.

- The MFC did suspend him for being drunk.

- Jurrah has denied the other accusations. Moreover, perhaps the MFC has learnt from the Lovett and decided that they can't move early on this? I know Lovett was different with the teammates etc. but at the same time he was definitely charged. To remove a player on such charges before the courts act could be regarded as influencing opinion as another body has 'found him guilty' and thus influences the opinion of a jury.

- A case this serious can take a bloody long time to get before a court for trial. Yesterday was the first of what can be a series of hearings that occurs before a trial date is even set. It probably won't be heard til at least October, if not next year. The reality is, to 'suspend a player til their case is heard' could take years and ruin their career.

Melbourne did not suspend Jurrah for drinking - He was fined $5000.

Sylvia was suspended for one week for drinking.

Can you explain the difference.

 

[Forward Press]

14 years maximum for a combined total of 6 offences?

Well I was going by what Timmy said and what some news sites said, but you'll have to forgive me for not fully understanding the applicable jurisdiction's laws since I'm from WA.

http://www.news.com.au/national/afl...ce-springs-court/story-e6frfkvr-1226358512749

This was back when he only had the two charges.

 

[pantskyle]

Do Melbourne supporters and the bleeding hearts even consider how close Jurrah could have come to killing someone?

This wasn't a fist fight in a pub.

It was a machete to the head..

Better then an arrow to the knee.

 

[Forward Press]

The court would not provide bail in such a circumstance, the person would be remanded until their trial.

In WA you are able to obtain bail even if you are charged with a homicide. It all depends on each individual circumstances and not solely based on the seriousness of the crime. Can't obviously speak for the rest of Australia though.

As I understand it, Jurrah's bail conditions even have to be modified when the Dees travel up to Darwin in a couple of months to allow him to play.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...ce-springs-court/story-fn7x8me2-1226358454437

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Well I was going by what Timmy said and what some news sites said, but you'll have to forgive me for not fully understanding the applicable jurisdiction's laws since I'm from WA.

http://www.news.com.au/national/afl...ce-springs-court/story-e6frfkvr-1226358512749

This was back when he only had the two charges.

I am going by what I have read in the press.

They sound like serious charges, you dont get 14 years for shoplifting. Or for punches thrown in pubs.

 

[Tulip]

A few points of note. People can make up their own mind of course but it's important that this opinion is an informed one.

1. For mine the presumption of innocence is paramount and he should not be punished regarding those specific charges until he is convicted. There has been other examples of non-indigenous players who have received the same opportunity eg : Hurley and Scotland etc. l don;t presume to know what happened until a court makes a judgement on that.

2. The laying of charges in no way conveys guilt. Moreover there are two accused in this situation and both are being charged without distinguishing between who may or may not have been responsible for the alleged attacks, if anyone. No idea if this will happen in this case but here in the NT it is common early on for a range of charges to be laid and then to be peeled back as a case proceeds and evidence is evaluated at committal hearings.

3. The co-accused has been remanded because he has violated parole a very short time after being released for a prior offence, hence placing him in a competely different position.

4. The nature of the case, two family groups from the same community split by a bitter and tragic feud, makes the nature and motivation of witness statements from either side difficult to receive objectively. The feud has been incredibly significant in its sad consequences for this small community.

5. Moreover as even the prosecutor noted yesterday Mr Robson told the court alcohol may have been a factor among some of the witnesses, as many people allegedly present at the dispute had been drinking. "To be fair, there is some disparity in the oral evidence in terms of who did what," he said.

6. July is only a committal hearing. The case will not go to trial, if it does so, until late this year or even more likely next year. This is the standard course here in the NT. To stand someone down for a whole season based on accusations seems unjust to me.

7. Jurrah has been sanctioned by the club for admitting to being drunk whilst on rehab. All other matters he has denied and they are subject to the course of the courts at this stage. Since his club sanction he has completed the program laid out for him by the club, spent many weeks in training, then 2 weeks at VFL and earnt an opportunity at AFL level.

8. More broadly anyone stating that Indigenous people get an advantaged ride in Australian society, most especially in the courts, well....it would be funny if it wasn't so ****ing sad.

Great post JJ, always spot on.

 

[Tulip]

Why? If I was a victim of someone wielding a machete and was permanently scarred or disabled from the attack, I'd want justice. You don't get special justice priveledges just because you can play football.

Good thing Basil Jurrah is apparently just fine.

 

[Tulip]

Agree.

Dont understand why Sylvia was suspended for one week for drinking, nothwithstanding Sylvia's past record, but it was in the off-season.

But Jurrah no suspension.

Sylvia must be shaking his head.

If Sylvia has a head he'll know the substantial pressure that Liam was going through in trying to heal a wound that was literally slowly killing his Millenia old community.

Racial sensitivity clearly transcends the intelligence of most of the people here.

 

[fushy]

Agree.

Dont understand why Sylvia was suspended for one week for drinking, nothwithstanding Sylvia's past record, but it was in the off-season.

But Jurrah no suspension.

Sylvia must be shaking his head.

Sylvia does something stupid every year so he has a history. Jurrah drinking offence was the first time.

 

[bing181]

Do Melbourne supporters and the bleeding hearts even consider how close Jurrah could have come to killing someone?

This wasn't a fist fight in a pub.

It was a machete to the head..

No it wasn't. Read the thread. Liam denies being involved in any violence, and even with the current charges, there's nothing to say that Liam was necessarily the culprit. In reality, the fact that the DPP have added these extra "lesser" charges indicates that they have a sense that the original more serious charges aren't going to stick.

Also, to comment on a couple of previous (and equally ill-informed posts):

- the 14 year sentence that is being referred to is the MAXIMUM penalty in the NT for the charge of aggravated assault if the result is serious injury. Which isn't the case here.

- Jurrah was indeed penalised for the club for drinking while in rehab

- Liam did very well for Casey in the past two weeks, and has earned his place in the side.

 

[LeverPuller]

Melbourne did not suspend Jurrah for drinking - He was fined $5000.

Sylvia was suspended for one week for drinking.

Can you explain the difference.

- Col is older than LJ.
- Col has been living in Melbourne longer than LJ.
- Col has been part of the AFL environment longer than LJ.
- Col has a history of being bat-shit stupid when it comes to common sense.

LJ had none of those things prior to this event.

Furthermore, it's harder to make an example out of one of the indigenous players in my opinion, particularly in a case like LJ's. People suggest that he should be treated like everyone else, but he's not like everyone else with his background. LJ's situation means that he has to be treated differently so he can even function in Melbourne. That's the reality.

Whereas Col Sylvia just comes across as a dumbarse of the highest order.

 

[mrpez]

Its hard not to agree with a lot of the comments (not all) from opposition supporters in this thread. They are very serious charges.

But the club have heard Liam's side of the story, and believe him. An in an innocent until proven society, that's enough for me for now. If Liam is proven innocent, then this decision will in my opinion be vindicated. If guilty, and Liam's told us some porkies, than this will reflect quite badly on us.

 

[royals1922]

This is what Andrew Demetriou said about the deregistration of Ben Cousins at the time of his deregistration in 2007:

“He is now a de-registered player and he has an option of choosing to nominate for the draft, but if he chose to nominate, the AFL commission has it within its powers to either accept or reject a nomination,” he said.
“I can’t pre-empt the Commission but I would say very strongly that the furthest thing from our minds and I’m sure from Ben Cousins’ family’s mind is playing football.
“I think it’s going to be really hard, really, really difficult for him to play in our competition [again].
“The AFL has now got an obligation to manage this great competition on behalf of our stakeholders, of which there are many.”
Demetriou was asked if parents should harbour any lingering doubts about sending their sons to play for the Eagles following their troubled year.
“I know there have been a number of parents who expressed no concerns with their children going [to West Coast] and a couple who have,” he said."

Note the highlighted paragraphs. Note the fact that Cousins was never found guilty of failing a drug test or a serious charge and was never accused of hurting anyone. note also that Cousins' charges were thrown out of court.


These were Demetrious's comments about Jurrah today:

""Let's not pre-judge, and let's afford this individual, like any individual, the opportunity to defend themselves," Demetriou said on Friday.

"We don't even know if this case will get to court, the charges could be dropped, they may end up in court where they'll be heard, but let's not start speculating on what may or may not happen.

"They are just charges, he is contesting those charges, he is adamant that he wants to contest those charges and have his day in court and we should respect that."

The fact that charges were dropped didn't matter in Cousin's case nor that no charges were ever found against him.

Bottom line is that Demetriou has different standards for Cousins than he has for Jurrah. With Cousins it was a concern about the stakeholders, the image of the AFL, now he's playing purity pureheart with Jurrah and the stakeholders so important in Cousins' case are not important now, it would seem.

PS all those comments are a matter of public record.

 

[dansa]

Its hard not to agree with a lot of the comments (not all) from opposition supporters in this thread. They are very serious charges.

But the club have heard Liam's side of the story, and believe him. An in an innocent until proven society, that's enough for me for now. If Liam is proven innocent, then this decision will in my opinion be vindicated. If guilty, and Liam's told us some porkies, than this will reflect quite badly on us.

Good post. I agree with all of it.

But I can't stop wondering whether Liam's strongest defenders on big footy would be just as strident in their defence if these charges had been laid against Milne or Didak say? I doubt it.
Would the AFL be supporting others in the same way ? I doubt it

It's the double standards that really gets to me.

 

[royals1922]

Then there's these bonmots of Simon Overland endorsed by Andrew Demetriou in 2009:

"The one thing we know about violence against women and children is it starts with men and their attitudes to women and children,” he said.
“Whether you’re a leading goalkicker, the coach, the boot studder - it doesn’t matter. It starts with you. It’s about the choices you make and it’s about what you’re prepared to put up with and what you’re prepared for your colleagues to put up with.”

So Andrew's set the standards unfortunately these standards don't extend into the Northen Territory.

 

[King Elvis]

AFL has shirked it.

Just because we have a legal system, doesn't absolve people of making decisions about people within their organization.