[News] Milan Lucic involved in domestic incident; Taking indefinite leave of absence

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Wife was drunk when she called 911.
First responders were unable to find any signs of physical altercation.
Wife declined to testify.

I get that "wife declined to testify against 6'3" 225lbs millionaire professional athlete husband" is not exactly shocking, but when you combine it with "wife was drunk" and "zero evidence was provided that anything beyond kicking some furniture had occured" .... "losers who beat their wives" just sounds like an unwaivering pre-determined guilt assignment based on the headlines when the incident was first reported.

First responders found redness on her chest area. She could have been beating her own chest though, that is a possibility. She also was sober and he was drunk. Other than that you got the facts right, it did involve Lucic and his wife.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

In situations like this people should refrain from pretending to know the story and passing judgement. My first wife was physically and verbally abusive, and a compulsive liar. She leveled lots of accusations against me that were all lies, usually aimed at covering up her own misdeeds. Things aren’t always what they seem. So wait for some kind of court decision, be it criminal or civil, before making judgement or commentary.

Glad to hear she's an ex as she sounds far from Prefect.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Glad to hear she's an ex as she sounds far from Prefect.

Thats entities from Betelgeuse Five for ya.

[PepsiFree]

Not that the situation itself is something to laugh at but there is something funny about someone saying “Hey, you can’t always trust one side of a dispute, as anecdotal evidence, here’s my one side of a dispute.”

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

First responders found redness on her chest area. She could have been beating her own chest though, that is a possibility. She also was sober and he was drunk. Other than that you got the facts right, it did involve Lucic and his wife.

nope

read the facts of the court case

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

nope

read the facts of the court case

I mean it is possible that you have a different interpretation of the facts presented before the court where they stated that Lucic grabbed her by her hair and pulled her backwards. Where they stated that she had red marks on her chest. Could be different from the person on the 911 call who said the male individual attempted to choke her. Those facts are open to interpretation.

This case is different from the 2011 case where police went to the Lucic residence at 130 AM in the morning and found Lucic standing over his girlfriend. That time when the police called the girlfriend immediately said it was a misunderstanding.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Also let's not pretend like people with deeply rooted issues don't attract other people with similar issues.

Usually well reasoned, well adjusted, secure people don't run off with and commit to compulsive liars with potential personality disorders, unless they're still very young and naive or got married within weeks or months of meeting.

I think a fair portion of he said/she said situation where the each party is alleging that they did no wrong while their partner committed all wrongs, the reality is probably in the mucky middle, but because of social desirability each side has convinced themselves of a rose-colored portrayal of the situation where details of their part in the situation are omitted or justified away somehow.

Abusive spouses do absolutely happen, but you always have to tread carefully when testimonies and recall can be so unreliable if all you have are those of the parties directly involved. Third party accounts and physical evidence are the best indicators of the factual truth that you're going to get.

[MissTeeks]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1758598000576750066

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

So.. thanks but no thanks.

We're not desperate enough to take you on our roster when you expire in a few months. But we support your family's recovery.

The right move by the Bruins.

[Funkhouser]

Sweeney should prepare for a call from Edmonton ASAP

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I mean it is possible that you have a different interpretation of the facts presented before the court where they stated that Lucic grabbed her by her hair and pulled her backwards. Where they stated that she had red marks on her chest. Could be different from the person on the 911 call who said the male individual attempted to choke her. Those facts are open to interpretation.

This case is different from the 2011 case where police went to the Lucic residence at 130 AM in the morning and found Lucic standing over his girlfriend. That time when the police called the girlfriend immediately said it was a misunderstanding.

Those aren't facts; they're assertions by the prosecution.

There is no case to read since it was dropped.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Those aren't facts; they're assertions by the prosecution.

There is no case to read since it was dropped.

I believe those aren’t just assertions by the prosecution - they were the portions of the police report read into the record by the Crown.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I believe those aren’t just assertions by the prosecution - they were the portions of the police report read into the record by the Crown.

What's the distinction? Whatever the police write in a report is an assertion by the prosecution.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

What's the distinction? Whatever the police write in a report is an assertion by the prosecution.

Well, no it’s not. It’s evidence of what the officer saw and heard. That’s why the defence requests that disclosure. So they can see if any of that evidence helps them.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, no it’s not. It’s evidence of what the officer saw and heard. That’s why the defence requests that disclosure. So they can see if any of that evidence helps them.

Right, and to be able to suppress it if obtained improperly or discredit it on cross.

That pre-trial hearing was just a prosecutor reading from the report. They can write anything they want on those reports; doesn't make it a fact.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Right, and to be able to suppress it if obtained improperly or discredit it on cross.

That pre-trial hearing was just a prosecutor reading from the report. They can write anything they want on those reports; doesn't make it a fact.

It’s more than a mere allegation or assertion.

Is it your assertion that the cops made what they wrote down? Why and for what reason?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I believe those aren’t just assertions by the prosecution - they were the portions of the police report read into the record by the Crown.

And the defence did not dispute them.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It’s more than a mere allegation or assertion.

Is it your assertion that the cops made what they wrote down? Why and for what reason?

Very possibly, because they want to write reports that are favorable for the state to get a conviction. Is it your assertion that cops never lie?

1. The police wrote in a report that X happened.
2. Therefore, X happened.

That's Russian FSB logic. Luckily, we have rights over here.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Very possibly, because they want to write reports that are favorable for the state to get a conviction. Is it your assertion that cops never lie?

1. The police wrote in a report that X happened.
2. Therefore, X happened.

That's Russian FSB logic. Luckily, we have rights over here.

Shame his defence team did not bring forward a motion to dismiss at pre-trial. That is the time to dispute findings of fact when you have a bullet proof case that what the prosecutor was reading was not fact and the prosecutor was, to use your words “reading from the report. They can write anything they want on those reports”

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Very possibly, because they want to write reports that are favorable for the state to get a conviction. Is it your assertion that cops never lie?

1. The police wrote in a report that X happened.
2. Therefore, X happened.

That's Russian FSB logic. Luckily, we have rights over here.

Please point me to where I said you can make a definitive conclusion from a police report. All I said was that it was more than assertion.

This has nothing to do with “rights”.

But again, what reason would there be to fabricate the notes?