@wokesmoke said in [Josh Reynolds](/post/1113402) said:@Harvey said in [Josh Reynolds](/post/1113385) said:@cochise said in [Josh Reynolds](/post/1113380) said:@Harvey said in [Josh Reynolds](/post/1113373) said:@tony-soprano said in [Josh Reynolds](/post/1113361) said:@Earl said in [Josh Reynolds](/post/1113351) said:@wokesmoke said in [Josh Reynolds](/post/1113281) said:Police and prosecution don’t just lay DV charges for the sake of it. Just because this woman may be and probably is mentally unwell doesn’t mean josh didn’t do anything. Got to see how the courts decide it.
It doesn't work like this mate. They charge first and then let the legal system work it out. The problem is all the political correctness in society today impacts the legal system and we get situations like this.
It's plain wrong and hopefully a bunch of posters on here including yourself will learn a lesson not to judge people like Josh too harshly in these situations.
Women beaters aren't good people but neither are women that use the legal system to play games.
So the way he spoke to her is okay now?
How would you speak to someone if you had just found out you had been scammed for several thousand dollars, had falsely led you through the emotions of believing you were about to become a parent, only to crush that when they could no longer substantiate their lies. Someone that you had broken up with and asked to leave, only for them to keep hanging around looking to bait you for one last pay day.
You would have to be the most intelligent and emotionless person to not have an explosive reaction.
There is no way of knowing if the video was made after or before he found out about her actions or what led up to his actions towards her. Both sides of this are still just allegations.
Only one side appears to have corroborating witnesses, the one that alleges that she is a criminal fraudster who has obtained money from a number of victims based on lies such as illness, pregnancy, family tragedy.
Reynolds has already had his reputation smashed, lost his white ribbon ambassador role (much like Hazem did based on the false allegations of a disgruntled ex), and was probably within a day or 2 of having his career taken away through the NRL's no ~~fault~~ evidence stand down policy.
While all that stuff makes for good reading and good news clicks it all has nothing to do with whether or not she was assaulted on the evening in question. Obviously she isn’t all there mentally, however to just assume this exonerates JR is throwing the black and gold blinkers on. And the video is the video. Can’t unseee it
I’m no legal expert but being not guilty isn’t necessarily the same as being innocent. Since this is a case of his word against hers all they need to do is prove her version of events isn’t reliable and it would seem that may be the case. Unless of course they have further evidence the other way.