Josh Reynolds

[TrueTiger]

This forum don’t wanna convict JR based on hearsay but want to convict the victim based on hear say. And want to justify JR actions based on the hear say. What evidence you do have is the video of JR losing his mind over something seemingly trivial and threatening to give her the business. Forum members are mixing up 2 doffernet issues.

It's not quite hearsay when your own parents are backing up everybody's sentiments, but even if you ignore that, there are likely documents including medical that back those up. Obviously we don't know that 100% for sure, but it really sounds like these do exist and will be presented in court. Let's wait and see..


100% agree on the wait and see, let the court decide, but I think you are conflating two issues. Even if it is not hearsay, even if everything on the Ch9 report is 100% true, it is still possible that JR assaulted her. The fact that she is a mentally ill, vindictive nasty piece of work that has done horrible things to JR, would not absolve him or anyone of assault.

Agree that it's still possible JR has assaulted her, and yes that claim still stands despite what was revealed yesterday. My point is that even so, as far as I'm aware there's no real evidence that he did do it either. But on the other hand, there is almost certainly some evidence that suggests his partner's credibility is non-existent. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion you could make is that he isn't guilty. I'm not saying he isn't, only that it's more likely that he isn't. Or beyond reasonable doubt as they say..


No question his ex partner appears to have zero credibility. I disagree that the only reasonable conclusion is he isnt guilty. As TrueTiger and others here have made the point that her behaviour may have been the motive and trigger for assault. Agree if it is a he said/she said situation, she is shot.

Still curious how/why as reported Reynolds turned himself in.

I just want once again to clarify my opinion on the matter of assault..I have a very nice partner and step daughter whom I treat as my very own..I have always been taught never to hit a woman,however because we are all different and have different emotions and thoughts particularly if we are under pressure,then we act in different ways when confronted by certain issues..
The issue I was referring to in Joshs case is if I was told I was the Dad of twins I would be over the moon with excitement,as JR was,he told everybody and was elated,then to be told he lost them was devastated...then it happened again,unbelievable,he even build a nursery for Gods sake...
My point had that been me and I found out the woman was just conning me then YES...MYSELF personally would PROBABLY smacked her in the head for cruelly lying to me for self gain...but that's just me and in my own defense,many on this forum have met me and my partner at previous get togethers,I love meeting people and enjoying life,however I just don't know how I would deal with this sort of scenario if it did happen to me..
let the courts decide on the matter.....I was just giving my opinion on what affect it could have on someone in general...

 

[weststigers]

Where are all the White Knights now?

Took a while to collect my wayward steed, but saddled and meshed up with sword in hand arriving now.

Seriously though, I don't think I have stated anything that I would need to take back on this issue, as there were not enough facts to form a proper opinion.

A lot of people had him locked up and the key thrown away though.

I think people get their back up because when an accusation is made, people find it near impossible to believe that the woman might be lying. There's simply no balance anymore.

Thankfully, her mother has come out and said something. A lot of men aren't that lucky.

 

[Tiger_Steve]

This forum don’t wanna convict JR based on hearsay but want to convict the victim based on hear say. And want to justify JR actions based on the hear say. What evidence you do have is the video of JR losing his mind over something seemingly trivial and threatening to give her the business. Forum members are mixing up 2 doffernet issues.

The problem with this forum, and particularly moreso in threads like this is that people speculate without presenting facts, and then combine speculation with personal beliefs which leads to differences of opinion and arguments, which this thread can certainly do without.

At the end of the day, if the speculation in this thread gets out of hand again, I'll close the thread. What people need to understand is that the facts will be presented in court based on the brief of evidence being submitted, then we'll see what we'll see...I'll keep my personal opinion out of it but I'm 99% confident of knowing how this case will end.

If posts become slanderous then you have every right to close the thread. If people are hurling abuse or threats then ban them. If anyone breaks forum rules - ban them. But to threaten to close a thread because people don’t base arguments on factual evidence is over the top. That’s like only allowing people to vote if they can prove they have a thorough understanding of political issues.

 

[Guest]

This forum don’t wanna convict JR based on hearsay but want to convict the victim based on hear say. And want to justify JR actions based on the hear say. What evidence you do have is the video of JR losing his mind over something seemingly trivial and threatening to give her the business. Forum members are mixing up 2 doffernet issues.

The problem with this forum, and particularly moreso in threads like this is that people speculate without presenting facts, and then combine speculation with personal beliefs which leads to differences of opinion and arguments, which this thread can certainly do without.

At the end of the day, if the speculation in this thread gets out of hand again, I'll close the thread. What people need to understand is that the facts will be presented in court based on the brief of evidence being submitted, then we'll see what we'll see...I'll keep my personal opinion out of it but I'm 99% confident of knowing how this case will end.

If posts become slanderous then you have every right to close the thread. If people are hurling abuse or threats then ban them. If anyone breaks forum rules - ban them. But to threaten to close a thread because people don’t base arguments on factual evidence is over the top. That’s like only allowing people to vote if they can prove they have a thorough understanding of political issues.

We'll agree to disagree in part on this one Steve - I've been on here far too long and have seen far too many threads deteriorate into gibberish because people can't discuss topics rationally.

 

[Tiger_Steve]

This forum don’t wanna convict JR based on hearsay but want to convict the victim based on hear say. And want to justify JR actions based on the hear say. What evidence you do have is the video of JR losing his mind over something seemingly trivial and threatening to give her the business. Forum members are mixing up 2 doffernet issues.

The problem with this forum, and particularly moreso in threads like this is that people speculate without presenting facts, and then combine speculation with personal beliefs which leads to differences of opinion and arguments, which this thread can certainly do without.

At the end of the day, if the speculation in this thread gets out of hand again, I'll close the thread. What people need to understand is that the facts will be presented in court based on the brief of evidence being submitted, then we'll see what we'll see...I'll keep my personal opinion out of it but I'm 99% confident of knowing how this case will end.

If posts become slanderous then you have every right to close the thread. If people are hurling abuse or threats then ban them. If anyone breaks forum rules - ban them. But to threaten to close a thread because people don’t base arguments on factual evidence is over the top. That’s like only allowing people to vote if they can prove they have a thorough understanding of political issues.

We'll agree to disagree in part on this one Steve - I've been on here far too long and have seen far too many threads deteriorate into gibberish because people can't discuss topics rationally.

I can live with agreeing to disagree.

I think jibberish is ok. What I’d love to see on here, and there’s no way to get it to happen, is for posters to acknowledge other perspectives rather than resorting to personal barbs at those with different views. The old ‘if you think X you have no idea’ etc - really poor imo.

 

[coivtny]

Great decision NRL.

 

[Tiger_Steve]

So my two bobs worth:

Apart from on the footy field I’ve never hit anyone. I believe if you need to resort to violence to prove a point you are only one step up from eating raw meat in caves. Violence towards anyone, is not on.

Also, if you haven’t walked in their shoes, you don’t truly understand. I went through a nasty separation and divorce where the threats, lies, criticism, abuse was non stop and damaging. I’m not perfect but I never retaliated. But I came close. I could have become violent if I’d ‘snapped.’ I didn’t, but it wasn’t out of the question.

So I won’t judge Reynolds because I haven’t walked in his shoes. I will never condone violence but I understand how it can rise to the surface when pushed to breaking point.

 

[bptiger]

IT really shows that the police will charge a male for a petty complaint, without even doing any back ground checks, JR is lucky that channel nine done the digging for him, she should be charged for what she has done. But we all know only males get charged in this P.C climate.

 

[Tiger5150]

So my two bobs worth:

Apart from on the footy field I’ve never hit anyone. I believe if you need to resort to violence to prove a point you are only one step up from eating raw meat in caves. Violence towards anyone, is not on.

Also, if you haven’t walked in their shoes, you don’t truly understand. I went through a nasty separation and divorce where the threats, lies, criticism, abuse was non stop and damaging. I’m not perfect but I never retaliated. But I came close. I could have become violent if I’d ‘snapped.’ I didn’t, but it wasn’t out of the question.

So I won’t judge Reynolds because I haven’t walked in his shoes. I will never condone violence but I understand how it can rise to the surface when pushed to breaking point.

I get the point you are making Steve, but there is nothing to judge Reynolds on yet, it hasnt been proved or disproved that there was any violence.

 

[TillLindemann]

Great decision NRL.

They've made a decision have they?

 

[wokesmoke]

IT really shows that the police will charge a male for a petty complaint, without even doing any back ground checks, JR is lucky that channel nine done the digging for him, she should be charged for what she has done. But we all know only males get charged in this P.C climate.

I’ve seen some terrible takes but this one is one of the worst. Give ya self one.

 

[LeichhardtTiger]

lucky that channel nine done the digging for him

Unlikely that they did the digging. They were just the Distribution Channel for JR's legal team's investigation.

 

[Tiger_Steve]

So my two bobs worth:

Apart from on the footy field I’ve never hit anyone. I believe if you need to resort to violence to prove a point you are only one step up from eating raw meat in caves. Violence towards anyone, is not on.

Also, if you haven’t walked in their shoes, you don’t truly understand. I went through a nasty separation and divorce where the threats, lies, criticism, abuse was non stop and damaging. I’m not perfect but I never retaliated. But I came close. I could have become violent if I’d ‘snapped.’ I didn’t, but it wasn’t out of the question.

So I won’t judge Reynolds because I haven’t walked in his shoes. I will never condone violence but I understand how it can rise to the surface when pushed to breaking point.


I get the point you are making Steve, but there is nothing to judge Reynolds on yet, it hasnt been proved or disproved that there was any violence.

Yep that’s true

 

[pawsandclaws1]

It's not only physical violence as you will read at the attached link. I asked myself if I would want my mother, sister or daughter (if I had one) placed in that situation in the video? Truthfully, we all know the answer.

The issue of the credibility of the young lady is a separate issue.

https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/crime/domestic_and_family_violence/what_is_domestic_violence

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Everyone asking where the white knights are, and I’m over here wondering where all the conspiracy theorists are who believe the NRL hates us, after the NRL granted Reynolds permission to play.

 

[Tiger5150]

I have my tinfoil hat on, but its a different conspiracy (not against us).

Does anyone think it was a coincidence that the CH9 report was aired the night before both JR court hearing and Greenberg's announcement?

 

[JC99]

I have my tinfoil hat on, but its a different conspiracy (not against us).

Does anyone think it was a coincidence that the CH9 report was aired the night before both JR court hearing and Greenberg's announcement?

Reynolds legal team would’ve contacted the news about it for sure and handed them all the information. Smart from them, there’s no way you can stand him down the day after that airs.

 

[coivtny]

Great decision NRL.

They've made a decision have they?

As I hear it he’s been freed to play by the NRL pending the outcome of his court case. The only decision they could have made given the info that’s in the public arena at the moment.

 

[Geo]

It's not only physical violence as you will read at the attached link. I asked myself if I would want my mother, sister or daughter (if I had one) placed in that situation in the video? Truthfully, we all know the answer.

The issue of the credibility of the young lady is a separate issue.

https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/crime/domestic_and_family_violence/what_is_domestic_violence

Does the same stand when the abuse of a Father, brother or son is subjected to the situation in the video..?

 

[Geo]

I have my tinfoil hat on, but its a different conspiracy (not against us).

Does anyone think it was a coincidence that the CH9 report was aired the night before both JR court hearing and Greenberg's announcement?

Don't believe it was co-incidental at all..