***Official*** New Zealand Domestic Season 2015/16

[straw man]

definitely interpreted that as Flat Track Bullies at first glance

 

[NZTailender]

Hold on a bit here.

If it's rape it's rape. No arguments there.

However, if it's not rape and consent was given, how is it "taking advantage"? At the risk of appealing-to-popularity, almost every one night stand in NZ involves alcohol.

I personally wouldn't be buying her drinks but that's because I'm cheap and drunk *** usually isn't actually that great. But alcohol isn't a defense nor a justification for actions so I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought here.

Because she was ****ing hammered man. Any person with a shred of decency would be like "**** I should take care of her and make sure she gets home safe" and not "oh yeah easy lay".

 

[NZTailender]

I mean I'm sure many of us have had girlfriends or FWBs come over quite inebriated but have absolutely wanted ***.

She had never met him before then, so it's nowhere near the same thing.

 

[hendrix]

Because she was ****ing hammered man. Any person with a shred of decency would be like "**** I should take care of her and make sure she gets home safe" and not "oh yeah easy lay".

She had never met him before then, so it's nowhere near the same thing.

Well, it was at her house so he did get her home safe (if it wasn't rape).

Why are you putting thoughts into his head? How do you know he was thinking "Oh easy lay"? I don't know about you but that's not a thought process I go through. Could he not have been thinking "I really like this chick, she's very attractive and she seems to be into me, yeah she's pretty drunk but so am I, let's see where this goes"? *** happens when 2 people like each other, quite often when people are drunk.

The fact that she's claiming there wasn't consent goes against all of the above of course. But if there was consent I'm not necessarily going to condemn someone for having consensual *** with a drunk chick after a night of drinking. Consensual being the key word.

 

[NZTailender]

Well, it was at her house so he did get her home safe (if it wasn't rape).

Why are you putting thoughts into his head? How do you know he was thinking "Oh easy lay"? I don't know about you but that's not a thought process I go through. Could he not have been thinking "I really like this chick, she's very attractive and she seems to be into me, yeah she's pretty drunk but so am I, let's see where this goes"? *** happens when 2 people like each other, quite often when people are drunk.

Yeah my bad for putting words into his head, but it's still generally true of a lot of men, and a definite MO.

The fact that she's claiming there wasn't consent goes against all of the above of course. But if there was consent I'm not necessarily going to condemn someone for having consensual *** with a drunk chick after a night of drinking. Consensual being the key word.

Northern Districts cricketer's rape trial: Court hears how woman met accused - National - NZ Herald News

"The defendant was on top of me and grabbed both my wrists and put his full body weight on top of me. At this point he physically overpowered me and he penetrated me. I was stuck and just staring up at the ceiling ..."

 

[NZTailender]

The fact that she's claiming there wasn't consent goes against all of the above of course. But if there was consent I'm not necessarily going to condemn someone for having consensual *** with a drunk chick after a night of drinking. Consensual being the key word.

Well duh. But just because someones drunk and seems up for it doesn't always make it OK. I dated someone who came over to my place after a night out and was hammered af. She wanted *** real bad and I told her no, because I wasn't comfortable with how drunk she was. She then passed out and the next day had no recollection of leaving the bar she had been drinking at, let alone what happened later with me.

I mean if you're both same amounts of drunk and it's consensual then it's probably fine. According to the victim this happened in the morning after they slept, so intoxication would've been less of a factor.

 

[Zinzan]

I like how some here seem to be charging him before the trial is actually over.

None of us know **** at this stage to judge his character either way, so some pretty rich talk happening. Let's just wait first.

It could be that some of you are right & he was shady as she claimed, or it could well be that she's trying to expose him for being semi-famous (in the Northern districts area). Let's not pretend this doesn't happen.

And then there's the scenario in which both the guy and girl are drunk, **** happens and the girl decides afterwards she regrets it. This is not uncommon by any means.

The fact none of us know **** at this stage means we have no business labeling him or speculating IMHO, especially on a public forum.


Not sure if many of you are old enough to remember NZ rugby player Roger Randle, who about 20 years ago was accused of raping this South African woman when on tour with the Chiefs.... Anyway, his name was dragged through the mud for months with the sort of speculation on his character that some seem to making/implying here.

Long story short, once the women was interviewed on some current affairs show, it was fairly obvious to all in sundry that she was just a manipulating opportunist, who was very good spinning a yarn and playing the victim.

Once again, I'm not talking either side here, but let's just let it play out first. Either of them or both could have been in the wrong.

 

[RxGM]

I like how some here seem to be charging him before the trial is actually over.

None of us know **** at this stage to judge his character either way, so some pretty rich talk happening. Let's just wait first.

It could be that some of you are right & he was shady as she claimed, or it could well be that she's trying to expose him for being semi-famous (in the Northern districts area). Let's not pretend this doesn't happen.

And then there's the scenario in which both and guy and girl are drunk, **** happens and the girl decides afterwards she regrets it. Not an uncommon scenario either.

The fact none of us know **** at this stage means we have no business labeling him or speculating IMHO, especially on a public forum.


Not sure if many of you are old enough to remember NZ rugby player Roger Randell, who about 20 years ago was accused of raping this South African woman when on tour with the Chiefs.... Anyway his name was dragged through the mud for months with the sort of speculation on his character that some seem to making/implying here.

Long story short, once the women was interviewed on some current affairs show, it was fairly obvious to all in sundry that she was just a manipulating opportunist, who was very good spinning a yarn and playing the victim.

Once again, I'm not talking either side here, but let's just let it play out first. Either of them or both could have been in the wrong.

All your points are valid provided that you are willing to admit that if Scott gets a Not Guilty verdict there is still a significant chance that he is a rapist. ***ual assault trails are just so heavily weighted towards the defendant as it becomes a he-said she-said argument with unreliable alcohol affected evidence.

 

[hendrix]

Well duh. But just because someones drunk and seems up for it doesn't always make it OK. I dated someone who came over to my place after a night out and was hammered af. She wanted *** real bad and I told her no, because I wasn't comfortable with how drunk she was. She then passed out and the next day had no recollection of leaving the bar she had been drinking at, let alone what happened later with me.

I mean if you're both same amounts of drunk and it's consensual then it's probably fine. According to the victim this happened in the morning after they slept, so intoxication would've been less of a factor.

Well yeah, I'm assuming he was also drunk when he went home, and yeah this happened in the morning.

I really feel that the attack on his character is completely unwarranted. Even if you feel that having *** with a drunk chick is sketchy, the fact that it allegedly happened in the morning means that if it wasn't rape he didn't do anything dodgy at all.

I've said no to drunk chicks before too but that's usually because it's unattractive, not for any real moral reason.

 

[hendrix]

All your points are valid provided that you are willing to admit that if Scott gets a Not Guilty verdict there is still a significant chance that he is a rapist. ***ual assault trails are just so heavily weighted towards the defendant as it becomes a he-said she-said argument with unreliable alcohol affected evidence.

Yes, but still, innocent until proven guilty.

 

[NZTailender]

All your points are valid provided that you are willing to admit that if Scott gets a Not Guilty verdict there is still a significant chance that he is a rapist. ***ual assault trails are just so heavily weighted towards the defendant as it becomes a he-said she-said argument with unreliable alcohol affected evidence.

this. The defence has already painted it as "oh well you were into him at the nightclub so clearly you were good to go"

 

[NZTailender]

Well yeah, I'm assuming he was also drunk when he went home, and yeah this happened in the morning.

I really feel that the attack on his character is completely unwarranted. Even if you feel that having *** with a drunk chick is sketchy, the fact that it allegedly happened in the morning means that if it wasn't rape he didn't do anything dodgy at all.

Unless she comes out and says I've completely made this up 100%, there's no way he's not dodgy.

 

[hendrix]

this. The defence has already painted it as "oh well you were into him at the nightclub so clearly you were good to go"

not really. The defense wouldn't be stupid enough to use that argument.

They're questioning her recollection of events given her testimony.

 

[hendrix]

Unless she comes out and says I've completely made this up 100%, there's no way he's not dodgy.

well that's kinda what the trial is for, isn't it. If he's not guilty the inference is that she's lied. Of course, it's more likely that it simply comes down to not enough evidence as it's a he-said-she-said thing, which is indeed unfortunate from the victim's perspective. But it's still not enough to make me denounce his character if we don't actually know which is true.

 

[NZTailender]

well that's kinda what the trial is for, isn't it. If he's not guilty the inference is that she's lied. Of course, it's more likely that it simply comes down to not enough evidence as it's a he-said-she-said thing, which is indeed unfortunate from the victim's perspective. But it's still not enough to make me denounce his character if we don't actually know which is true.

They only have to raise enough reasonable doubt, that's not the same as proving she's a liar. Conversely I recognise it's not the same as proving he's a rapist. Guys have been getting away with ***ual assaults and rapes through the courts using the same defense forever.

 

[NZTailender]

not really. The defense wouldn't be stupid enough to use that argument.

They're questioning her recollection of events given her testimony.

Defence lawyer Philip Morgan QC began his cross examination of the witness yesterday afternoon and repeatedly asked if she was downplaying the attraction she had for Kuggeleijn or the fact that she had large gaps in her memory of the night.

Morgan played footage from the night club which showed the pair dancing for several minutes on the dance floor before going down the corridor towards the toilet where they kiss again.

They return to the bar and the victim disappears to the toilet for no longer than five minutes, according to the video.

The victim said she had no memory of this and could also not recall grabbing Kuggeleijn's crotch earlier in the night or kissing him passionately in the back seat of the car on the way in to the bar.

"I'm putting to you that you were very interested in him and made it very obvious to everyone else," Morgan said.

Whether or not she had shown attraction to him or not is irrelevant. What matters if she said no (which she says she did) and if he went ahead anyway. And they're using her recollection of events to cast doubt on the matter. It's a double pronged attacked: You didn't remember your whole night so how can you remember saying no? You were clearly into him so it's likely you wanted to.

 

[Kippax]

Consent at heart of cricketer Scott Kuggeleijn's rape trial | Stuff.co.nz

Northern Districts cricketer's rape trial: Court hears how woman met accused - National - NZ Herald News

Oof, here we go. From what I've read so far, I think he's probably going to be cleared. Rape convictions are hard to get even in fairly blatant cases, because usually it comes down to a "he said/she said" where reasonable doubt wins through. Throw in the heroic amounts of alcohol that were consumed and the girl's own admission that her memory of the night's events is patchy and, unless the prosecution can point to something else like a prior history of offending, then it's hard to see the jury convicting.

This is still going to be two girls on two separate nights though, remember. I assume there's been no news of any recanting from that other girl yet.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Kill all men imo

 

[NZTailender]

Whether or not she had shown attraction to him or not is irrelevant. What matters if she said no (which she says she did) and if he went ahead anyway. And they're using her recollection of events to cast doubt on the matter. It's a double pronged attacked: You didn't remember your whole night so how can you remember saying no? You were clearly into him so it's likely you wanted to.

I mean I get the defence are trying to use the fact she says she doesn't recall feeling attracted him against her because they have video proof, and not that it's proof she consented, but it adds to the implications (hey Dennis) that she just regrets it now and is making things up or is deliberately contradicting herself to make him look bad.

 

[hendrix]

This is still going to be two girls on two separate nights though, remember. I assume there's been no news of any recanting from that other girl yet.

wait what?