Sam Burgess MEGATHREAD

[Natboy]

Sam’s intimidation charge against his former father in law was dismissed in the Goulburn District Court as it should be but he’s gone on the new charges.

The father in law being so petrified and still following Sam to his car to argue more didn’t add up nor did Phoebe calling her PR expert before the Police.

Shout out to the bitches that said my comments on the intimidation charge aged well etc

 

[DinkumDog]

Crazy laws. Just wrong. The protector gets charged and the perp walks free.

This aged well. As I said previously, allegations can be very damaging and difficult to live down - that’s why courts exist to sort the wheat from the chaff. Is Burgess a cleanskin? No, far from it - and possibly will be answerable to other charges - but never forget what role bitterness can play into the formation of baseless allegations - it happens and quite often.

Former NRL star Sam Burgess has intimidation conviction against ex-father-in-law overturned - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au

 

[DinkumDog]

Yes and remember the bagging the poor father got. Some tore shreds off the guy.

Possibly for valid reasons.
Something the pitchfork wielders could learn a lesson on - that there’s always two sides to the story and all may not be as it seems. The ‘poor’ father followed Burgess to his car to continue an argument - hardly a case of being ‘petrified’ of him.

 

[DinkumDog]

Men who hurt women or kids are the weakest form of a human. Drug filled drunk or enraged. All good excuses. Non valid. Abuse should not be tolerated

Absolutely. But don’t forget ‘abuse’ is a two way street, as this acquittal has at least partially proven. I would never defend anyone who hurts anyone and booze or drugs are no excuse - in fact probably exacerbate it. It’s just important to acknowledge that often all it not what it seems as reported in the media.

 

[wendog33]

Possibly for valid reasons.
Something the pitchfork wielders could learn a lesson on - that there’s always two sides to the story and all may not be as it seems. The ‘poor’ father followed Burgess to his car to continue an argument - hardly a case of being ‘petrified’ of him.

This aged well. As I said previously, allegations can be very damaging and difficult to live down - that’s why courts exist to sort the wheat from the chaff. Is Burgess a cleanskin? No, far from it - and possibly will be answerable to other charges - but never forget what role bitterness can play into the formation of baseless allegations - it happens and quite often.

Former NRL star Sam Burgess has intimidation conviction against ex-father-in-law overturned - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au

Very odd how the Appeal Magistrate could differ so much in the damning findings found by the original Magistrate.


Former NRL star Sam Burgess found guilty of intimidation in 2019 domestic dispute

Ex-Rabbitohs captain Sam Burgess found guilty of intimidation after argument about his children

A magistrate found Sam Burgess's ex-father-in-law Mitchell Hooke was an "impressive, believable and consistent" witness who gave "clear and concise" evidence about a domestic dispute in the Southern Highlands in 2019.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Motorhead]

Teflon Summy does it again.

 

[DinkumDog]

Very odd how the Appeal Magistrate could differ so much in the damning findings found by the original Magistrate.


Former NRL star Sam Burgess found guilty of intimidation in 2019 domestic dispute

Ex-Rabbitohs captain Sam Burgess found guilty of intimidation after argument about his children

A magistrate found Sam Burgess's ex-father-in-law Mitchell Hooke was an "impressive, believable and consistent" witness who gave "clear and concise" evidence about a domestic dispute in the Southern Highlands in 2019.

www.abc.net.au

Why odd? Often new evidence can be brought to light between original hearing and appeal. That’s why it’s important to let the process run to its conclusion before judgement - I’ve seen this with a family member first hand and it’s why I have a strong opinion on it. It’s even worse for those it plays out in the media for.

 

[Motorhead]

Why odd? Often new evidence can be brought to light between original hearing and appeal. That’s why it’s important to let the process run to its conclusion before judgement - I’ve seen this with a family member first hand and it’s why I have a strong opinion on it. It’s even worse for those it plays out in the media for.

There is no denying Burgess is an absolute turd though in general. Sounds like he married into an equally shit family. Turds attract flies.

 

[wendog33]

Why odd? Often new evidence can be brought to light between original hearing and appeal. - I’ve seen this with a family member first hand and it’s why I have a strong opinion on it. It’s even worse for those it plays out in the media for.

"That’s why it’s important to let the process run to its conclusion before judgement".

Well after going to court and the original Magistrate coming up with some pretty damning "facts" that he relied on for his judgement of guilty and 2 year good behaviour bond...it was fairly safe, at that stage, to conclude that the process had run to its conclusion between the father and Burgess.

Then Burgess decided to appeal.

This Magistrate was pretty scathing of the father, pretty much called him a scheming liar, so he might bring further procedings himself. Who knows.

He got let off on this particular matter. It's only a minor part of the bigger picture and only between the protecting father and the thug, drug convicted, DUI Burgess so there's more judgements to come and to be made on Sammy.

 

[DinkumDog]

There is no denying Burgess is an absolute turd though in general. Sounds like he married into an equally shit family. Turds attract flies.

Indeed I don’t for one second think he’s a cleanskin nor a role model of any sort - but family law cases are often very bitter and result in false allegations being levelled to attempt to damage someone’s character. In this case it came to light that lawyers and PR people were called before Triple 0 which suggests motive. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[DinkumDog]

"That’s why it’s important to let the process run to its conclusion before judgement".

Well after going to court and the original Magistrate coming up with some pretty damning "facts" that he relied on for his judgement of guilty and 2 year good behaviour bond...it was fairly safe, at that stage, to conclude that the process had run to its conclusion between the father and Burgess.

Then Burgess decided to appeal.

This Magistrate was pretty scathing of the father, pretty much called him a scheming liar, so he might bring further procedings himself. Who knows.

He got let off on this particular matter. It's only a minor part of the bigger picture and only between the protecting father and the thug, drug convicted, DUI Burgess so there's more judgements to come and to be made on Sammy.

‘Damning’ - there goes that pitchfork again.
It’s not ‘fair’ at all. It was pre-appeal.
The appeal appears to have shown motive from
The original complainant(s). The character of the defendant is not part of it - only the ‘facts’ are.

 

[Como Dog]

Why odd? Often new evidence can be brought to light between original hearing and appeal. That’s why it’s important to let the process run to its conclusion before judgement - I’ve seen this with a family member first hand and it’s why I have a strong opinion on it. It’s even worse for those it plays out in the media for.

From what I heard on the radio about the points of the appeal souns like the behaviour of the original magistrate should be brought into question.

I also question why there may not be implications for Pheobe and her dad for what is proven as false evidence. Not sure if it was presented only but if either was questioned and lied, surely that's perjury. Any lawyers out there would love to hear your thoughts on this.

He's definitely no clean skin but the rules apply to everyone.

 

[wendog33]

‘Damning’ - there goes that pitchfork again.
It’s not ‘fair’ at all. It was pre-appeal.
The appeal appears to have shown motive from
The original complainant(s). The character of the defendant is not part of it - only the ‘facts’ are.

Yes but you are missing my point... did you read the original Magistrates summation before sentence.

It is damning no question.

 

[wendog33]

From what I heard on the radio about the points of the appeal souns like the behaviour of the original magistrate should be brought into question.

I also question why there may not be implications for Pheobe and her dad for what is proven as false evidence. Not sure if it was presented only but if either was questioned and lied, surely that's perjury. Any lawyers out there would love to hear your thoughts on this.

He's definitely no clean skin but the rules apply to everyone.

That is the crux of my reply.

The original Magistrate was so damning.

How does this happen?

 

[DinkumDog]

From what I heard on the radio about the points of the appeal souns like the behaviour of the original magistrate should be brought into question.

I also question why there may not be implications for Pheobe and her dad for what is proven as false evidence. Not sure if it was presented only but if either was questioned and lied, surely that's perjury. Any lawyers out there would love to hear your thoughts on this.

He's definitely no clean skin but the rules apply to everyone.

Whether or not Police decide to charge anyone else is up to them. I’d say it’s unlikely, but it does show that all is not always as it seems and keeping an open mind is important. It’s so hard on defendants when they know they haven’t done what’s been accused.

 

[DinkumDog]

That is the crux of my reply.

The original Magistrate was so damning.

How does this happen?

Because new evidence has been introduced in the appeal. As to why it wasn’t (or wasn’t available) in the original hearing I don’t know.

 

[wendog33]

Because new evidence has been introduced in the appeal. As to why it wasn’t (or wasn’t available) in the original hearing I don’t know.

Which goes to the acceptance that the original Magistrate made damning findings based on the evidence presented at that time, and the public relied on the original Magistrates judgement with sentencing.

 

[Natboy]

Because new evidence has been introduced in the appeal. As to why it wasn’t (or wasn’t available) in the original hearing I don’t know.

Some people just can’t admit they were wrong mate. The local court magistrate decision was puzzling and as much as Sam is a bit of a grub it’s good for his sake the district court had more brains

 

[DinkumDog]

Which goes to the acceptance that the original Magistrate made damning findings based on the evidence presented at that time, and the public relied on the original Magistrates judgement with sentencing.

Nope. What it shows is that the local court is reserve grade and those above it first grade.

 

[Tassie Devil]

Nope. What it shows is that the local court is reserve grade and those above it first grade.

Truth be told I think you and me DD see eye to eye on most things. But this I never agreed with you about.

However, clearly I was wrong. I hate Burgess but no one can argue against the recent ruling. I'm not saying hes innocent, but the Mrs and her father lied about contacting anyone before speaking to the police and the fact they said says something. The fact that they spoke for such a length of time and to who is damning imo.

Some on here should be big enough and say they were wrong. My pure dislike of Burgess clouded my judgement.