News Jack De Bellend Megathread

[Dawgfather]

There are those of us who keep our word to our wives to never cheat. If I was on that jury, I would view his betrayal of his word to his wife to mean everything that was coming out of his mouth was more of the same, lies.

That's your opinion, but it does not reconcile to the strict instructions the judge would give the jury regarding what they can and can not consider when deciding Jack DeBelin's guilt.

 

[KambahOne]

That's your opinion, but it does not reconcile to the strict instructions the judge would give the jury regarding what they can and can not consider when deciding Jack DeBelin's guilt.

The prosecutor will certainly call into question his word and ethics, his betrayal of his wife a glaring example, giving the jury ample evidence to form their opinion.

 

[Dawgfather]

The prosecutor will certainly call into question his word and ethics, his betrayal of his wife a glaring example, giving the jury ample evidence to form their opinion.

I know that's the first thought that comes across the mind, but it's not that simple. There are trial guidelines especially for sexual assault cases as to what can and can not be presented as evidence in front of the jury.

Often the judge will forbid any presentation of the accusers prior dating or sexual history.

My understanding is that this equally forbids the presentation of any evidence regarding the defendants past history as well.

Generally, what the jury hears in the court room is tightly controlled which means the jury is only presented with things like:

Version of events on the night in question
Witness testimony
physical evidence

Things like whether someone cheats, lies on their tax returns, lies to their parents is inconsequential and nothing to do with whether or not someone has committed the awful crime of rape/sexual assault.

 

[Alan79]

The prosecutor will certainly call into question his word and ethics, his betrayal of his wife a glaring example, giving the jury ample evidence to form their opinion.

While the goal for the defence will be to smear the reputation of the young lady in this. It seems like they're going to be bringing half De belins family and character witnesses from the club in to try to establish that he's a good widdle boy who was led on. Given that she supposedly knew Sinclair before the night, it wouldn't surprise me if they're able to dig up a pissed off ex boyfriend to smear her reputation in this.

I honestly don't know the truth of this. But no expense will be spared to get the two men out of shit.

 

[The DoggFather]

There are those of us who keep our word to our wives to never cheat. If I was on that jury, I would view his betrayal of his word to his wife to mean everything that was coming out of his mouth was more of the same, lies.

I agree.

Shows what type of human he is.

 

[Psycho Doggie]

What has been revealed so far looks like a classic case of young adults drinking too much and then the two genders misreading each other. It happens way too often. The reality is that get a bit of drink inside some people (especially younger people) and they become dangerously short sighted, they struggle to recognise long term consequences, and they also find it harder to see what other peoples moods are. In these kinds of cases the basic story is that she didn't want to, he did, intoxication makes it difficult to communicate and/or to receive communication. If her testimony about him questioning her emotionality is true, it fits exactly this scenario, they didn't hear each other, they didn't understand each others intentions.

Is he guilty? In some respects that is a tough one, it is quite possible he could quite honestly say "I intended no harm", and be speaking 100% truthfully. The real questions should be if harm has occurred, and if judgement is made based on whether or not harm has occurred, than he should cop the consequences. This should go doubly so for NRL players or anyone else who has specifically received education about exactly this kind of scenario. Drinking and random encounters among young people so often end in tears. If you want to lower your risk, don't do it.

I've seen and know of examples of the absolutely worst case outcomes from this kind of thing. While I can understand the argument that the offender intended no wrong, or misread the situation, the fact is that the trauma outcomes are too often very severe indeed, and at the moment the benefit of the doubt too often goes to the person who is untraumatised by what happened. I don't have the answers, but maybe if that benefit of the doubt flipped we might start seeing less of this.

 

[Natboy]

Just remember there’s a big difference between being not guilty and innocent. Not everyone can afford top barristers either

 

[gbrussell]

I know that's the first thought that comes across the mind, but it's not that simple. There are trial guidelines especially for sexual assault cases as to what can and can not be presented as evidence in front of the jury.

Often the judge will forbid any presentation of the accusers prior dating or sexual history.

My understanding is that this equally forbids the presentation of any evidence regarding the defendants past history as well.

Generally, what the jury hears in the court room is tightly controlled which means the jury is only presented with things like:

Version of events on the night in question
Witness testimony
physical evidence

Things like whether someone cheats, lies on their tax returns, lies to their parents is inconsequential and nothing to do with whether or not someone has committed the awful crime of rape/sexual assault.

I was on a jury for a sexual assault case in 2013. At least twice per day in the 6 day trial we were sent to the jury room. Both barristers put forward legal arguments which we were not allowed to hear.

 

[Psycho Doggie]

Just remember there’s a big difference between being not guilty and innocent. Not everyone can afford top barristers either

Anyone who is tempted to think that the young woman involved might be doing this for something other than honest reasons needs to realise the actual truth on the ground. There are far more rapes and assaults that don't make it to court because the victim is made aware of what they are up against in terms of the likely defense, AND will have to face the trauma over again, AND such cases historically aren't successful. We have real problems with power imbalance in our society, and you only need to look as far as Rolf Harris and Harvey Winestain to see that where there is a power imbalance an offender can rack up a lot of victims. In the case of people like the abominable Harris, most were young and unknown, but take a look at some of the weinstein victims and you'll see a number of women you'd think could do something about someone assaulting them, except despite their fame, there was still a real power imbalance.

That is why both of them got away with many offences over many years.

 

[Alan79]

Anyone who is tempted to think that the young woman involved might be doing this for something other than honest reasons needs to realise the actual truth on the ground. There are far more rapes and assaults that don't make it to court because the victim is made aware of what they are up against in terms of the likely defense, AND will have to face the trauma over again, AND such cases historically aren't successful. We have real problems with power imbalance in our society, and you only need to look as far as Rolf Harris and Harvey Winestain to see that where there is a power imbalance an offender can rack up a lot of victims. In the case of people like the abominable Harris, most were young and unknown, but take a look at some of the weinstein victims and you'll see a number of women you'd think could do something about someone assaulting them, except despite their fame, there was still a real power imbalance.

That is why both of them got away with many offences over many years.

Even the POTUS has past form for grabbing womens crotches without consent as revealed by a recorded conversation. So I agree about the power imbalance you're talking about. It can't be easy to have your integrity called into question when you're the victim in these cases.

 

[Dawgfather]

I was on a jury for a sexual assault case in 2013. At least twice per day in the 6 day trial we were sent to the jury room. Both barristers put forward legal arguments which we were not allowed to hear.

Exactly. The judges strictly control what information the jury do and don't receive.

 

[Bulldogsteve]

I agree.

Shows what type of human he is.

it didnt read too well in the paper this morning

 

[speedy2460]

Exactly. The judges strictly control what information the jury do and don't receive.

This is called antecedents. The only information disclosed to a jury is in relation to the case in question.
Any previous criminal offences or other matters not related to the case in question cannot be disclosed to a jury.
However, if a guilty verdict is bought in, the previous criminal activity etc, can be considered when applying a sentence.

 

[B-Train]

The prosecutor will certainly call into question his word and ethics, his betrayal of his wife a glaring example, giving the jury ample evidence to form their opinion.

Unfortunately even if De Bellin is guilty, his defence team can do the same and be as aggressive as possible in trying to get her to trip up on her story, or find some behaviour in her past, or an instance where she was proven to have lied and they can use the same argument.

In that instance, the jury would likely say there's too much doubt and say it's his word against hers. That's the way these cases usually end up, even in instances where there is a stack of physical and circumstantial evidence against the accused.

These cases often take a huge toll on the alleged victims and often justice isn't served.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Oh when the Saints come marching In.......

 

[Cappuccino]

So glad this scumbag is getting what he deserved
So good to see a bumped thread with Mr Invisible banned

 

[CroydonDog]

Today's report (copied from the Guardian but reported by AAP):

Jack de Belin's alleged rape victim messaged 'help' after attack, court hears
The NRL star is on trial in Wollongong accused of raping a 19-year-old with a friend in late 2018

Australian Associated Press
Published:14:16 Wed 4 November 2020

Jack de Belin’s alleged rape victim messaged “help” to a friend after slipping away from the NRL star in a nightclub line after the attack, a jury has heard.
The St George Illawarra player, 29, and Shell Cove man Callan Sinclair, 23, have pleaded not guilty to the aggravated sexual assault of the woman in a North Wollongong unit in December 2018.
Both men say everyone was consenting but the woman has said they ignored her protests and cries.
The Wollongong district court jury has heard the trio caught an Uber to the city’s CBD and joined a nightclub line after the alleged assault. But the woman, then 19, quickly walked away from the line minutes later when some of the men’s friends arrived.
After getting around a corner, she opened Instagram and messaged a male friend she knew was also out partying, the court was told.
“Help,” the message read. She told the friend she was “not that OK”. But the court heard she declined to elaborate, telling the friend “probably something I can’t tell you anyways”.
'I was numb inside': Jack de Belin rape trial hears from alleged victim of NRL star
“For someone to just hear it straight up, it’s quite horrific,” the alleged victim told the court on Wednesday. “What had happened to me was quite horrific and I thought I couldn’t tell him at that time.”
The friend’s housemate then reached out on Snapchat, the court was told. He’d seen the woman with de Belin and Sinclair before the alleged rape. “The guys you saw me with just abused me,” she messaged him.
The woman told the court she turned down an offer to spend the night at the friend’s home and another to smoke weed with a third person she’d messaged. “I ended up going home to bed and crying myself to sleep,” she said.
De Belin and Sinclair are accused of “cheering each other on” while assaulting the tearful woman who said they ignored her protests.
The footballer “doesn’t and never has” disputed sexual activity took place but says it was consensual, his barrister, David Campbell SC, told the jury on Tuesday.
Craig Smith SC, for Sinclair, told the jury his client didn’t sexually assault the teenager. “There is evidence both before and after that activity that is consistent with that activity being consensual activity,” he said.
The alleged victim on Tuesday told the jury during the attack she “was just going dead and numb inside and just let it happen”. “I only weigh 51 kilograms – they’re twice the size of me,” she said.
The trial continues.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

Not defending anyone, but this is telling " asking his victim why she was “being so emotional” Either Jack is a sociopath or the woman felt a guilt trip after the event. If you knowingly raped someone, what kind of a question is that? Unless you are a sociopath.

 

[chisdog]

Even the POTUS has past form for grabbing womens crotches without consent as revealed by a recorded conversation. So I agree about the power imbalance you're talking about. It can't be easy to have your integrity called into question when you're the victim in these cases.

You have misquoted him. He said he "could" He never said he did. You also need to look at the circumstances of that conversation being like in a men's locker room - ie bragging. No women have come out & pressed charges of him doing so either.

 

[Nasheed]

The paper re being a bit clikbaity up in here.

they are making it as if De Belin gave the girl 50 bucks to not report a raping lol.

Instinct and common sense tell me that 'keep a secret' and 50 large was about not telling anyone because of his pregnant gf.