Lovett to stand trial over rape allegation

[krusden]

Why can't they name the girl. They've named an unconvicted man as an accused rapist. Why not name the person making the accusation? Surely that would be fair.

because we are living in australia, not some backwards country.

there ARE countries (IIRC) where victims/accusers are named in various cases although i believe it is a contentious practice to say the least

 

[bomberclifford]

The mitigating circumstance for Gram is the previous intimacy. Lovett was motivated by ego and intoxication. There was no foreplay here prior to the digital stuff one might presume.

Just the facts ma'am, just the facts.

 

[evo]

And the Prosecution might rightly query why Lovett elected to remain alone with the sleeping woman instead of following the "party" to the balcony when for the rest of the evening for him had been one of bonhomie and "hail fellow, well-met". It might ask if he was concerned for the welfare of the young woman or if indeed his motives were opportunistic .

One can only hope that the prosecution does indeed use that exact phrasing.

 

[Muted]

So if I had friends around for a BBQ, and my wife got inebriated and hit the sack early, while I stayed up drinking and a so called "mate" went in and got her stirred up, with her thinking it was me, it would be free slather for him?

I don't think so.

Wow... good example!

Why can't they name the girl. They've named an unconvicted man as an accused rapist. Why not name the person making the accusation? Surely that would be fair.

In court EVERY person is named. It is the media that are often prevented from stating these facts.

Why would you want to know the name of the victim? It would only lead to the media chasing her family, friends, publishing facebook photos, etc. It is to protect her identity and welfare. Yes, it is only an allegation. But an allegation sufficient enough to see court time.

Even if they didn't name Lovett, instead calling him a ''high profile footballer'' it wouldn't take much to check the court listings which can be found online.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

According to the Age she has had a drunken blackout over a lot of the detail that went on that night.

I assume that will help with Lovett's defence.

"She testified that she could not remember kissing Gram or being alone in the room with him.

She also said she could not remember telling Gram after she left the apartment that she thought she had been sleeping with him.

She said she could also not remember telling Gram downstairs later: "That black bastard f---ed the s--t out of me, I feel like a ****, I thought it was you."

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/a...urt-lovett-took-advantage-20100813-122jw.html

 

[HarryTiger]

So if I had friends around for a BBQ, and my wife got inebriated and hit the sack early, while I stayed up drinking and a so called "mate" went in and got her stirred up, with her thinking it was me, it would be free slather for him?

I don't think so.

While the relationships are not as clear cut as my example, I think there would still need to be some prelude to the sex act for Lovett to consider that he was welcome there. If she did indeed give consent to "Andrew Lovett" then the running out of the flat and breaking down in tears would seem to be a strange reaction.

No it's not quite the same because you don't usually expect a person's wife to be up for some infidelity.

But your point stands and I missed it that the prelude needs to be considered which occurred to me after the post. If a woman who is in a state of inebriation is approached for sex then the instigator needs to be darn sure she's progressed to lucidness before attempting sexual contact.

In other news

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/a...urt-lovett-took-advantage-20100813-122jw.html

Reading that it would seem the victim is not the sharpest tool in the shed and I can see the defence having a field day with her on the stand.

 

[HarryTiger]

According to the Age she has had a drunken blackout over a lot of the detail that went on that night.

I assume that will help with Lovett's defence.

Not so quick, it throws doubt on her recollections of events but gives support to the premise that she was not in a sober enough state to give informed consent to sex.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No it's not quite the same because you don't usually expect a person's wife to be up for some infidelity.

But your point stands and I missed it that the prelude needs to be considered which occurred to me after the post. If a woman who is in a state of inebriation is approached for sex then the instigator needs to be darn sure she's progressed to lucidness before attempting sexual contact.

In other news

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/a...urt-lovett-took-advantage-20100813-122jw.html

Reading that it would seem the victim is not the sharpest tool in the shed and I can see the defence having a field day with her on the stand.

Ouch, it looks that way. If she can't remember Gram kissing her, how can she say she can remember what she may or may not have done with Lovett immediately before the event?

If a girl told me she had reacted like that to six ordinary drinks, I'd be questioning what else was in the drink!

 

[jonesy86]

TMI in the latest heraldsun online article

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Not so quick, it throws doubt on her recollections of events but gives support to the premise that she was not in a sober enough state to give informed consent to sex.

True, although the flip side of that is it makes it very easy for the defence to drive a truck through her entire testimony on the basis that she was far too drunk to remember accurately (no matter how truthful her testimony) what did or didn't happen and what she did or didn't say etc.

Which is why one would assume it's going to be a very iffy circumstancial case unless the prosecution is able to dredge up an eyewitness.

 

[Charlotte]

True, although the flip side of that is it makes it very easy for the defence to drive a truck through her entire testimony on the basis that she was far too drunk to remember accurately (no matter how truthful her testimony) what did or didn't happen and what she did or didn't say etc.

Which is why one would assume it's going to be a very iffy circumstancial case unless the prosecution is able to dredge up an eyewitness.

I don't think the defence would use that, as if they are trying to argue that she was that drunk that she could not remember etc they will put the dagger straight into Lovett as he should have relised that the consent may not have been there if she was drunk.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I don't think the defence would use that, as if they are trying to argue that she was that drunk that she could not remember etc they will put the dagger straight into Lovett as he should have relised that the consent may not have been there if she was drunk.

Of course they'll argue it...the reality is she's the main witness (none of the other witnesses will be eyewitnesses) as best as we know and so if they can make the jury doubt whether her memories (and hence her testimony) are correct they'll be a long way towards reasonable doubt.

It doesn't open Lovett up really because all he can say is that he was mistaken (i.e. she said something he took to mean consent, when it wasn't) and unless there's another eyewitness to refute that, he ain't hanging himself. Hence why her credibility will be the thing the case hangs on, and hence why any defence lawyer will go after her re the drunk/accurate memory stuff.

 

[Charlotte]

Of course they'll argue it...the reality is she's the main witness (none of the other witnesses will be eyewitnesses) as best as we know and so if they can make the jury doubt whether her memories (and hence her testimony) are correct they'll be a long way towards reasonable doubt.

It doesn't open Lovett up really because all he can say is that he was mistaken (i.e. she said something he took to mean consent, when it wasn't) and unless there's another eyewitness to refute that, he ain't hanging himself. Hence why her credibility will be the thing the case hangs on, and hence why any defence lawyer will go after her re the drunk/accurate memory stuff.

The question is over the consent, and yes if a reasonable person (and judging by the accounts of what has been said she was very drunk) thought she may have been drunk then her consent goes out the window.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

The question is over the consent, and yes if a reasonable person (and judging by the accounts of what has been said she was very drunk) thought she may have been drunk then her consent goes out the window.

Maybe, but the way the burden of proof works, they have to prove she was not capable of consenting at the time it alledgedly happened, and more critically, in relation to the point I was making, they have to prove he must have known that (ie. that any defence of mistaken consent is bs) In and of itself proving that she was pretty darn drunk is good and sufficient to take to trial, which is why it got past committal, but it isn't a slam dunk.

 

[Charlotte]

Maybe, but the way the burden of proof works, they have to prove she was not capable of consenting at the time it alledgedly happened, and more critically, in relation to the point I was making, they have to prove he must have known that (ie. that any defence of mistaken consent is bs) In and of itself proving that she was pretty darn drunk is good and sufficient to take to trial, which is why it got past committal, but it isn't a slam dunk.

The fact that he walked into the room before the alledged rape took place with the victim's friend and the victim could not be moved shows that he knew she was pretty drunk.

I'm not say I think he is totally guilty, I think the truth lies somewhere between both stories (however when players won't play with a team mate it makes you think it is further from Lovett's story then the victim's story) however if she was very intoxiacted that she could be moved then she could not give consent and therefore it is rape.

I feel for men and teenage boys as even if they think they have consent it doesn't mean in a court of law that they have consent and their whole life can be turned upside down.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I think its significant that she claims not to be able to remember some of the events that took place before she went to sleep in the bed.
Lovett could claim that she woke up and hit on him, and it would be inconsistant if she claimed that she would have remembered such a thing.

As I stated earlier, it would be unusual for someone to get to that state after drinking the 6 drinks she claimed to have had, unless drinking was a particularly unusual activity for her.

I dont necessarily think that Lovett is innocent, but I think he has a fair to middling chance of getting off.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

The fact that he walked into the room before the alledged rape took place with the victim's friend and the victim could not be moved shows that he knew she was pretty drunk.

I'm not say I think he is totally guilty, I think the truth lies somewhere between both stories (however when players won't play with a team mate it makes you think it is further from Lovett's story then the victim's story) however if she was very intoxiacted that she could be moved then she could not give consent and therefore it is rape.

I feel for men and teenage boys as even if they think they have consent it doesn't mean in a court of law that they have consent and their whole life can be turned upside down.

Yeah good points on all counts, I totally agree with you. The truth probably is in shades of grey somewhere, not that we'll ever know.

In real (i.e. logic) terms, I think he would have known, or should have known, she was not capable of consenting. My point is just that if she was too drunk to be a credible witness, then he can mount a defence re that issue, and it's hard to be disproved, hence I think there's a decent chance he will or can get found not guilty.

 

[HarryTiger]

Simply being 'drunk' doesn't rule out your ability to give informed consent. She would really need to be out of it for that, at the point where she would need assistance to walk. Drunk people are having sex all the time.

But there's the sleep aspect too, she can't give consent whilst sleeping. So then you have drunkeness + sleep/tiredness. It's tough deciding whether the line was crossed or not.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

But there's the sleep aspect too, she can't give consent whilst sleeping. So then you have drunkeness + sleep/tiredness. It's tough deciding whether the line was crossed or not.

A lot will depend on what statement she gave to the police that night. Same goes for Lovett. He can't now, knowing that the girl has admitted having a drunken blackout on what happened that evening, go and change his story to take advantage of that.

My take on the whole incident is that Lovett is such an egotistical tool that he could not fathom any girl ever rejecting any of his advances. He probably thinks all girls immediately give implicit consent the minute they lay eyes on him. That would account for his being appearing so astounded over the shit storm that happened when the girl started screaming rape. I'd say he genuinely thought he had consent when everything i have heard about the case says otherwise.

 

[yaco55]

Gram must have been pre-occcupied not to notice what was happening.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

But there's the sleep aspect too, she can't give consent whilst sleeping. So then you have drunkeness + sleep/tiredness. It's tough deciding whether the line was crossed or not.

But if she can't remember various aspects of the night's events, then how can she say for sure that she didn't wake up and give consent, perhaps thinking it was Gram?

 

[Amber Guzzler]

A lot will depend on what statement she gave to the police that night. Same goes for Lovett. He can't now, knowing that the girl has admitted having a drunken blackout on what happened that evening, go and change his story to take advantage of that.

The best legal advice I ever got was "If you're ever arrested or charged with anything, don't answer any questions. It's their responsibility to prove you guilty, and anything you say can only be used to help them do that."

My take on the whole incident is that Lovett is such an egotistical tool that he could not fathom any girl ever rejecting any of his advances. He probably thinks all girls immediately give implicit consent the minute they lay eyes on him. That would account for his being appearing so astounded over the shit storm that happened when the girl started screaming rape. I'd say he genuinely thought he had consent when everything i have heard about the case says otherwise.

That's probably pretty close to the truth.

 

[Tas]

According to the Age she has had a drunken blackout over a lot of the detail that went on that night.

I assume that will help with Lovett's defence.

"She testified that she could not remember kissing Gram or being alone in the room with him.

She also said she could not remember telling Gram after she left the apartment that she thought she had been sleeping with him.

She said she could also not remember telling Gram downstairs later: "That black bastard f---ed the s--t out of me, I feel like a ****, I thought it was you."

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/a...urt-lovett-took-advantage-20100813-122jw.html

Not good for her. I feel sorry for her if things panned out the way she claims they did but she seems to have a fair recollection of what happened and remembers saying no but claims she was so out of it that she couldn't fight back. Couldn't hit him, couldn't scratch him, couldn't scream so the others in the house could hear her.

It doesn't sound good and would imagine when it gets to the trial she is going to get hammered by the defence attorneys and they will claim she consented and regretted her decision afterwards and made up the rape claim.

The defence just has to raise enough reasonable doubt and her evidence isn't great.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

But if she can't remember various aspects of the night's events, then how can she say for sure that she didn't wake up and give consent, perhaps thinking it was Gram?

The whole thing will hinge on how detailed her account to the police was the night she gave her statement. If she left stuff out then she probably has no credible way of introducing it because of her admitting she can't remember diddly squat.

 

[ata33cro]

Not good for her. I feel sorry for her if things panned out the way she claims they did but she seems to have a fair recollection of what happened and remembers saying no but claims she was so out of it that she couldn't fight back. Couldn't hit him, couldn't scratch him, couldn't scream so the others in the house could hear her.

It doesn't sound good and would imagine when it gets to the trial she is going to get hammered by the defence attorneys and they will claim she consented and regretted her decision afterwards and made up the rape claim.
The defence just has to raise enough reasonable doubt and her evidence isn't great.

Good point.

It'll be interesting to see how she handles the questions the during the trial.