Yeh, just saying, it does happen. There's also a different burden of proof in an employment setting, so it would depend on what the club thinks in the circumstances (not referring to Jurrah, just more generally).

Agreed, absolutely happens all the time, got a mate going through it right now (unfair dismissal that is), and it's no good for either party involved.

And I would think the club will take all it can from the case to make an informed decision about what circumstances Liam put himself in and what action, if any, is needed.

Umm, not guilty is not equal to "proven innocent" (even if he was in fact) in the court system

Ummmm legally you're either guilty or innocent. Innocent until proven guilty, he was proven not guilty, hence innocent.

I understand what you're getting at, but it's a harmful path to go down.

The Lovett thing was a bit different because what he was accused of directly impacted (destroyed) his relationship with his teammates. It didn't actually make any difference whether the courts found him guilty or not; his position was untenable at the club. You only have to look at how the very same club handled the incident with Stephen Milne who was accused of the same crime and they didn't sack him.

On this thread; my view is that it'll remain open for the time being but I defer to Whispering Jack for the future of it.

The Lovett thing was a bit different because what he was accused of directly impacted (destroyed) his relationship with his teammates. It didn't actually make any difference whether the courts found him guilty or not; his position was untenable at the club. You only have to look at how the very same club handled the incident with Stephen Milne who was accused of the same crime and they didn't sack him.

On this thread; my view is that it'll remain open for the time being but I defer to Whispering Jack for the future of it.

Good point Nash. Hadn't delved that deep into it with what I was talking about.

As for this thread, I hope we can keep the discussion to a level that will enable it to stay open, informative, and supportive.

Why would we sack anyone for being accused of something?

Don't think you guys understand how the legal system works, it's innocent until proven guilty, and as we've found out via recent history, if you sack someone due to baseless accusations you will end up paying for it. It's called unfair dismissal, would you feel ok about it if you were fired from work for stealing when you hadn't done it?

Perhaps I should've added that I wouldn't think the club would sack him, but my point was more to do with the support Jurrah's being given. I'm not 100% sure that others would be given the same level of support.

From what Ive heard, Liam doesn't drink and never has.....

What is your interest in this matter Sorge?

Do you follow Melbourne?

This is a football discussion site where the common interest in the fortunes or otherwise of the demons. Obviously froma perspective of human decency there is a sympathy by many to the plight of the other party involved.But my main interest in Liam's fate as he is a valuable asset to the future of my club.

Yes I do follow Melbourne i'm a gold member. You remind me of a lot of people that say ' i'm not a racist but....'

Nothing that has happened today should cause any concern. Basil Jurrah had slight, albeit serious, injury to his scalp that required six stiches. Evidence so far presented affirms that he was struck repeatedly with a machete by Liam whilst his accomplice was pounding him with an axe.The defence will have a field day with that witness.

I will be much more interested in the doctor's report.There seems to be doubt as to whether the injury was actually caused by a machete. As Liam was found carrying a machete, I am aslo very interested in the forensic report on that machete, and whether or not it was used in the assault.

Hope it's not the same doctor as the Adelaide Football Club. If his report about Dangerfield a couple of years ago landed Trengove a 3 week ban for a sling tackle, LJ may need to be prepared for the chair...

The court has heard that Basil Jurrah was so drunk that he could not stand and the he attacked Liam with a machette and that Liam was defending himself......The witness also stated that she had not seen Liam hit anyone....This is a woman that had not been drinking that night and is a party that was on the opposing side and called by the prosecution...On the age web site for anybody interested....(I don't know how to post a link)

Some further developments from today.

http://mobile.news.com.au/sport/afl/demons-star-liam-jurrah-in-alice-springs-for-hearing-on-assault-and-violence-charges/story-fndv7pj3-1226432167209

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/demons-star-liam-jurrah-hit-cousin-in-self-defence-court-told/story-e6frg6nf-1226433874365

Wow some interesting developments there.

Not surprising at all, although you're correct that they are interesting.

Blow the siren!

Jurrah's biggest hope is that the prosecution case fails on the basis that sworn testimony/verbal evidence being contradicted.

Not unusual in these sort of cases.

And being found not guilty is not the same as being determined innocent. DC is right the courts will only assess the position of guilty/not guilty. From the verdict of not gulity people assume it means innocence when that is not necessarily the case.

Jurrah's biggest hope is that the prosecution case fails on the basis that sworn testimony/verbal evidence being contradicted.

Not unusual in these sort of cases.

And being found not guilty is not the same as being determined innocent. DC is right the courts will only assess the position of guilty/not guilty. From the verdict of not gulity people assume it means innocence when that is not necessarily the case.

This case is not to prove or disprove Innocence/Guilt.....It is to see if there is enough evidence to go to trial...Therefore the prosecution must convience the Magistrate that there is......If so a trial will be held in the Supreme Court of the NT.Where Guilt or Innocence will have to be proved to a jury.....

This case is not to prove or disprove Innocence/Guilt.....It is to see if there is enough evidence to go to trial...Therefore the prosecution must convience the Magistrate that there is......If so a trial will be held in the Supreme Court of the NT.Where Guilt or Innocence will have to be proved to a jury.....

No case is about proving innocence/guilt. And the contraction of testimony/evidence of the prosecution is indeed a relevant factor in assessing there is enough evidence to go to trial. However there is a habit of magistrates courts to pass uncertain positions to the Supreme Court to put cases before a jury. Its a chance that this case might not go there but I doubt it. And if it does a jury will assess the evidence placed before it in the Court and determine whether the defendants are guilty/not guilty of the charges they have appeared for. Juries dont have to prove anything...Prosecution and defense counsels do.

Can the judge refer the case to the Supreme Court but withdraw LJ from it.

ie Can he say there is a case for the co-accused and remove one of the defendants?

Can the judge refer the case to the Supreme Court but withdraw LJ from it.

ie Can he say there is a case for the co-accused and remove one of the defendants?

As I understand it......Each of the defendants will have their own set of lawyers arguing for their own client......Each of the defendants are judged(for want of a better word)on their deeds on the night.....So If the co accused did something that the Magistrate believed true and the other co accused did not then 1 could be sent to trial whilst the other two may not.....Stand to be corrected....

Goodness. Imagine being a prosecutor when your witnesses are drunk by their own admission and then tell a different story to the one they told you earlier, while admitting under questioning that the alleged victim had the machete in his hand!

And they are your witnesses!

There is a lot of hate up there....

http://www.theage.com.au/national/clubs-and-machetes-used-in-drunken-brawl-jurrah-case-hears-20120724-22mi8.html

That article is positive. The only witness who wasn't under the influence has completely defended Liam.

Still hope

For interest sake....

The British and American system have verdicts of Guilty or Not Guilty (acquittal)

In Scotland they have two versions of acquittal - Not Guilty and Not Proven

And to top it off the Italians (who else) have five different flavours of acquittal (yes 5)

Right now I'd be shocked if this went to trial.

Right now I'd be shocked if this went to trial.

I must say I'm reluctantly confident given the witness debacles.

Then again, it feels much like the reluctant confidence I had before the first Lions game, the Bulldogs game, the Swans game, the second Lions game.....................

http://www.theage.co...0724-22mi8.html

That article is positive. The only witness who wasn't under the influence has completely defended Liam.

Still hope

That may be most trials in Alice Springs