Are the ARU really just going to ignore the infamous second text?

"There is no evidence that Patston did the wrong thing." Yes there is. Patston brought a serious complaint about Beale - the second text. A person bringing a serious complaint has a duty to assist with the investigation - to tell what they know and to provide whatever evidence they have got even if (or rather, especially if) it might clear the accused. Her behaviour is just inexplicable for any decent reasonable person - withholding her phone to be checked, refusing to speak to investigators, refusing to attend the hearing. She could have withdrawn the complaint if she realised e.g. that she had got some facts wrong - that is what a person of integrity would have done. "then bring it out, place it on the table and let Patston face the music. If she did the wrong thing she needs to be held to account." Oh please spare us these contrived arguments - you know perfectly well that she got out of any scrutiny by resigning, and for the very same reason she cannot be held to account. "In any case, lets say for the sake of discussion that she did not have the qualifications she was initially thought to have..." You are correct that this is a separate issue. But it does have relevance in one area - where a person has indulged in bizarre behaviour such that a likely explanation is that they have fabricated a serious allegation, then its legitimate to ask how generally truthful they are. The evidence appears pretty strong that Patston did provide incorrect qualifications to the ARU, and that she also did the same on her social media sites. That seems like more than just coincidence when we look at the second text incident . "The second more offensive text was found to be not able to be proven, not proven not to have happened. Evidence either way is needed for it to be anything other than an open finding." Thanks for the weasel words, but it is more than that. You don't make "open findings"" when there is NO cogent evidence to support an allegation. That part of the complaint should never have been brought in the first place, but it was, because Patston made a verbal allegation and persisted in it, but refused to allow it to be tested or checked. Normal people don't do that.

Sancho, at this time there is evidence that Beale did the wrong thing at least once. There is no evidence that Patston did the wrong thing. Everything brought up about Patston so far is speculation. If someone (please god let there be someone) has actual evidence Patston did something actually wrong, then bring it out, place it on the table and let Patston face the music. If she did the wrong thing she needs to be held to account. There is a lot of conversation and speculation about linkedin profiles etc. But no evidence. In any case, lets say for the sake of discussion that she did not have the qualifications she was initially thought to have. What does that mean about Kurtley sending her an inappropriate text? Does it excuse his behaviour? At most it brings into question how the ARU manages itself. It does not mean she faked other messages. Without evidence, that is pure fiction. I'm completely open to the idea she might have manipulated information she submitted to the ARU but unless you can demonstrate she did this, why even mention it? It's not even like someone involved in the whole thing has alleged this is what she did. If Kurtley has run some defense or counter allegation that this is a fit up, then it should be investigated. For outsiders to be concocting "defenses" on his behalf is ludicrous. I've said it in commentary on other articles, but why not here as well. The second more offensive text was found to be not able to be proven, not proven not to have happened. Evidence either way is needed for it to be anything other than an open finding. There can be no "implies a falsehood in the evidence Ms Patston presented to the ARU". Insufficient evidence is not falsehood. If anyone has any proof, put it forward. Equally, the people claiming Beale destroyed evidence, should pull their heads in unless they have proof. What can already be proven is sufficient to show he did the wrong thing and needs to get his faecal matter together if he is to continue a career in rugby.

A further problem with the "second textor" theorem is that it's truth also implies a falsehood in the evidence Ms. Patston presented to the ARU. By all reports, she implicated Beale on both counts. It would be better, for the indignant defenders of the lady's honor, to stick with the "Beale sent both, but destroyed the evidence" angle.

Qantas may go broke before they get around to writing the next cheque anyway!

Yes, I'm sick of the whole affair as well, but the elephant in the room has to be dealt with. The official line is that the texts were both serious, the second one being *extremely* serious. The first one was sent by Beale and he had to be punished. The second one was not sent by Beale, so whoever sent it needs to be identified and punished more severely than Beale. We've all got our own opinions on the matter, but they don't really matter at this point. The powers that be have painted themselves into this corner- without identifying and sanctioning the 'second texter', there can be no official resolution or closure to this.

Are the ARU really just going to ignore the infamous second text? Yes they are unless more evidence is presented....... Now. Can we please just get on with it. There's a game tonight. Move on.

Are the ARU really just going to ignore the infamous second text? Yes they are unless more evidence is presented....... Now. Can we please just get on with it. There's a game tonight. Move on.

You are both assuming that the second text was sent at all. We don't have any reliable evidence that it was. Just a "screen shot" that Patston showed to somebody in ARU (Pulver presumably, since he immediately went to the press to make comments about it without checking) but then declined to provide any evidence in support of it.

Can any poster tell me what's behind their references to Whatsapp? So far the only thing we have confirmed is that Patston provided screenshots to the ARU depicting 'multimedia messages(MMS)' .While the term 'multimedia messages' is ambiguous, 'MMS' is not. It refers to a particular messaging protocol of mobile phone subscriber accounts(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Messaging_Service). Either the ARU is wrong to use that specific technology or it rules out any third-party data based service such as Whasapp being in play.

The Whatsapp argument doesn't work. She was quite clear to the ARU - Beale sent it to her on her phone. She has exchanged many texts with Beale so she knows his number. She then went on sick leave, so she couldn't talk to ARU investigators. She refused to hand over her phone to the ARU (despite her now claiming in the press, a long time later, that she did give it to persons unknown in the ARU), and then she resigned, thus avoiding having to attend the tribunal hearing . And then, the billing records don't show any such text being sent by Beale to her.

I'm not saying she did. I'm making some logical conclusions, based on what's known. After all the hoohaa, it would pretty irrational for the ARU to know it was another player and do nothing about it. Hence, I assume that the evidence they got from ms. Patston indicated Beale, but that examination of his phone could not establish the same.. From there it is natural to suspect that the evidence from Ms Patston was inaccurate. She could prove it one way or the other if she wants to, but at this point there is nothing for the ARU to do or say because they can not.

It's pretty simple. You e-mail the conversation with attachments to yourself, edit the text file as required and print it, the original attachments, as well as any other you may like. Hand the printouts over and make as statement as to the source. The fake will be hard to spot until they examine your's and the alleged sender's phones or obtain records from WhatsApp.

The identity of the second texter will come out one way or another & when it does a real clean up will occur at St. Leonards. All the conjecture will then have been worthwhile. Lets just get the truth ... that's all we need. Not such a big ask Mr. Hawker & Mr. Pulver +++ lets just have the truth!!

So to add to Di's crimes, she now possess the ability to fake messages........ u serious? Yeah possible, not for the average person mate. You do realize that with LInkedin you create the profile, with messages its created by another device. Please feel free to give us a quick overview how you fake messages on whatsapp?????

I suspect Hanson was just picked at random for defence purposes. I doubt he was trying to send it to him. Picking someone left field is a good deterrent if people investigate

IMO who ever is sponsoring the Wallabies should put monetary pressure on ARU to complete the investigation. If my company were to be endorsing the Wallabies I will require full investigation completed before writing my next check.

Yeah, it's had me confused too. Sent initially to some Waratahs inner sanctum. Then 5 days later trying to send it to James Hanson. At that point in time 4th hooker on the Wallabies cab rank. You had Moore and TPN fit at hat stage and James Hanson probably wasn't even on the radar with Charles next in line. Does that not make you wonder how that Hanson is best mate no. 4 or 5 with Kurtley Beale and next person after his Waratahs BFF's to receive his prank message??????????

It could be that no one sent the second text. That it was a fabrication by the accuser. Text messages are as easy to fake as LinkedInn credentials. The ARU suspecting this, would explain why they have no interest in a further investigation.

Sorry mate but that is completely the wrong attitude. What is this, the 12th time (no exaggeration) Beale has been involved in disciplinary/ behavioural dramas? Letting it go and writing it off as a 'bad joke' is only going to lead to places rugby can't afford to go. The NFL has lost hundreds of millions in sponsorship over the way it dealt with players attitude towards and treatment of women. The NFL can afford it, rugby in Australia can't. We need to be better and cleaner than every sport and right now we are worse/ To say it should just be 'let go' completely misses the bigger picture. And it lets down the Wallaby brand and the players from Weary Dunlop to Eales to Pocock who have taken the bigger picture seriously. Beale needed to have his contract torn up, the fact that it hasn't happened is a disgrace and Cheika has already let us all down.

Got it, head, sand, insert!