50 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You seriously believe three independent players/families completely fabricated these stories? Their perception of events may differ but I find it hard to believe they just made them up out of thin air. At the very least there should be corroborating evidence of the partner who contacted the police to try and speak with the player who the club had isolated and cut off communication with. Caroline Wilsons article yesterday indicates there will be some witnesses coming forward to corroborate at least some of the allegations;

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/we-were-watching-those-blokes-break-the-hawthorn-women-who-would-not-stay-silent-20220919-p5bj8u.html

"While the review undertaken by Egan focused upon a group of Indigenous players and their families it has now emerged that at least one former assistant coach has corroborated some of the claims. At least one former player manager involved at the time has indicated his willingness to back up some elements of the review."

One would think all the player managers should be able to corroborate the practical experiences of their charges regarding change of SIM cards and change of abode as they need to keep in touch.  One would hope they dug a bit deeper with the player as to why?

Not to mention clubs need to let ASADA know where players are at all times and how to contact them.  GWS were fined and Whitfield got a 6 month ban for not doing so and he was at the home of a GWS manager.  ASADA would also have records.

Even if some are borrowing Essendon's shredder or wiping computers.there should be a bit of documentation around to back up some of the claims.

Edited September 25, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

On 9/23/2022 at 5:21 PM, layzie said:

Maybe the old 'Thank God this call went through to voicemail' trick?

Ah, the Rhodesia Solution!

Some say the coaches are getting no natural justice because they havent been given a chance to respond to the allegations.  Does the same not apply to someone accused of a crime?  They are named in public.  They get a chance to tell their side of things during a trial. The coaches will get their chance in the investigation the AFL is organizing.    It is sad but true that in both examples, if the allegations prove unsubstantiated, the person's reputation may take a hit but that's just the way things are.  Better than having everything done in secret and the public losing all confidence in the process.

7 minutes ago, sue said:

Some say the coaches are getting no natural justice because they havent been given a chance to respond to the allegations.  Does the same not apply to someone accused of a crime?  They are named in public.  They get a chance to tell their side of things during a trial. The coaches will get their chance in the investigation the AFL is organizing.    It is sad but true that in both examples, if the allegations prove unsubstantiated, the person's reputation may take a hit but that's just the way things are.  Better than having everything done in secret and the public losing all confidence in the process.

Yes they are currently seen as guilty before having an opportunity to prove their innocence!

Really screws with both Roos & Lions 2023 preparations. 
If either found guilty you would think that would be it re future senior coaching aspirations for 6-8 years when you look at Hird scenario!

Edited September 25, 20223 yr by D4Life
Error

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Just to clarify, are you calling Russell Jackson a keyboard warrior, a "personality" rather than a journo?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/russell-jackson/12422852

Not at all I was responding more generally to a point raised earlier and quoted in my post where a poster was hoping that journalism would learn some type of lesson and become more responsible. Maybe you should get in the habit of actually reading posts before you start facepalming and getting on your high horse…just a suggestion

26 minutes ago, D4Life said:

Yes they are currently seen as guilty before having an opportunity to prove their innocence!

...

Yep, unfortunately that's what anyone accused of a crime effectively suffers.  I can't see how it can be any different here unless everything is kept secret which would mean that many would never trust the result (or non-result).  

I've detailed my position in a post at 7:49am yesterday, page 21 so won't repeat it all again.

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Caroline Wilsons article yesterday indicates there will be some witnesses coming forward to corroborate at least some of the allegations."

Smoke.  Fire.  Its clear some serious stuff happened.  But let's be clear what being a witness means.  Don't throw the word around lightly.  If you are a witness, you were there.  You heard what was said, to whom it was said, when it was said.  If you weren't there, you only know what you were told.  That's what judges call hearsay, right?  If there really are witnesses, then it's game over.  Testimony from two or more people who were there, against someone else who denies it, is surely a slam dunk.

20 minutes ago, Frosticles said:

Smoke.  Fire.  Its clear some serious stuff happened.  But let's be clear what being a witness means.  Don't throw the word around lightly.  If you are a witness, you were there.  You heard what was said, to whom it was said, when it was said.  If you weren't there, you only know what you were told.  That's what judges call hearsay, right?  If there really are witnesses, then it's game over.  Testimony from two or more people who were there, against someone else who denies it, is surely a slam dunk.

True, but surely it can add to a case if a witness (who might be disbelieved for some reason) is able to say, " I told X about it at the time' and X is called as a witness to confirm that happened.  It's evidence that the accusation wasn't concoted yesterday. (Leaving long planned conspiracies or lying aside).

46 minutes ago, Frosticles said:

Smoke.  Fire.  Its clear some serious stuff happened.  But let's be clear what being a witness means.  Don't throw the word around lightly.  If you are a witness, you were there.  You heard what was said, to whom it was said, when it was said.  If you weren't there, you only know what you were told.  That's what judges call hearsay, right?  If there really are witnesses, then it's game over.  Testimony from two or more people who were there, against someone else who denies it, is surely a slam dunk.

A “witness” in these cases would be someone who was told of the allegations first hand, at the time?

24 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

A “witness” in these cases would be someone who was told of the allegations first hand, at the time?

you need to reword that, swyl.  it's not clear what you mean

8 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

you need to reword that, swyl.  it's not clear what you mean

What’s so difficult to decipher?

The witness is given an account of events from the victim first hand, when it happened

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What’s so difficult to decipher?

The witness is given an account of events from the victim first hand, when it happened

ok....then that would be a hearsay witness as distinct from a firsthand witness

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What’s so difficult to decipher?

The witness is given an account of events from the victim first hand, when it happened

 

Just now, daisycutter said:

ok....then that would be a hearsay witness as distinct from a firsthand witness

Yes and no, from my understanding DC.

I think its counted as hearsay if you're trying to use those accounts as facts/evidence, but if you're using them to dispute someone else's account then it can be used to cast doubt on their testimony.

ie -

Victim tells witness on a certain date that specific things were said and done in a meeting.

Defendant denies any such meeting ever took place.

Witness gives statement that they were told of the meeting at the time. This casts doubt on the defendants testimony.

Couldn't be further from my area of expertise though, so don't base any future legal matters you may encounter on it!

 

Okay at its simplest

Hearsay is a witness saying X told me that he saw Y happening

1.can generally not be used as evidence that Y happened

2. it can however be admitted as evidence that X said it if the fact of saying it has evidentiary bearing on the case

Point 2 is particularly important as corroboration for a complaint made by X

 

Edited September 25, 20223 yr by Diamond_Jim

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

 

Yes and no, from my understanding DC.

I think its counted as hearsay if you're trying to use those accounts as facts/evidence, but if you're using them to dispute someone else's account then it can be used to cast doubt on their testimony.

ie -

Victim tells witness on a certain date that specific things were said and done in a meeting.

Defendant denies any such meeting ever took place.

Witness gives statement that they were told of the meeting at the time. This casts doubt on the defendants testimony.

Couldn't be further from my area of expertise though, so don't base any future legal matters you may encounter on it!

 

yes, sometimes a second hand testimony may can carry some weight especially where it is close in time to the event

it all depends, but it is not as good as first hand testimony. even first hand testimony is usually subject to corroboration and or interpretation

19 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

yes, sometimes a second hand testimony may can carry some weight especially where it is close in time to the event

it all depends, but it is not as good as first hand testimony. even first hand testimony is usually subject to corroboration and or interpretation

Yes, but what I was trying to explain was that a testimony to corroborate an account can be used to cast doubt on the testimony of someone giving a conflicting account.

34 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

ok....then that would be a hearsay witness as distinct from a firsthand witness

As opposed to those in the room at the time of conversations, yes. 
just clarifying witnesses 

We are talking years before 

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

Yes, but what I was trying to explain was that a testimony to corroborate an account can be used to cast doubt on the testimony of someone giving a conflicting account.

of course, especially in a non court situation like this.

but we are getting into too much speculation which i'm trying hard to avoid

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

A “witness” in these cases would be someone who was told of the allegations first hand, at the time?

No, witness is someone who witnessed the actual events. Being told something doesn't make you a witness.

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

of course, especially in a non court situation like this.

but we are getting into too much speculation which i'm trying hard to avoid

For sure, will be interesting though as this kind of thing could be used on either 'side' you'd think.

10 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

For sure, will be interesting though as this kind of thing could be used on either 'side' you'd think.

as the accusations are quite serious and the implications for the accused quite extensive, i'd expect there would be a lot of serious lawyering up.

I don't think this will be resolved as quick as many think, assuming of course it is contested

15 minutes ago, Ugottobekidding said:

No, witness is someone who witnessed the actual events. Being told something doesn't make you a witness.

Yes, thought so. But in this type of case my above example would still carry some weight. ie Player x goes home and tells a close friend what occurred that day?

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

as the accusations are quite serious and the implications for the accused quite extensive, i'd expect there would be a lot of serious lawyering up.

I don't think this will be resolved as quick as many think, assuming of course it is contested

Both the Lions and the Roos have put out fairly strong statements now about the matters, so definitely feels like it will be very much contested. You'd think the AFL panel they've commissioned would be tasked with getting their part of it wrapped up ASAP so the coaches can at least get back to their work, but yeah, a LOT to play out after that and could go on a long long time potentially.

 

15 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes, thought so. But in this type of case my above example would still carry some weight. ie Player x goes home and tells a close friend what occurred that day?

That could be used I guess as supportive evidence but with out any real witnesses, not sure a judge would allow it in a jury trial.

4 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Both the Lions and the Roos have put out fairly strong statements now about the matters, so definitely feels like it will be very much contested. You'd think the AFL panel they've commissioned would be tasked with getting their part of it wrapped up ASAP so the coaches can at least get back to their work, but yeah, a LOT to play out after that and could go on a long long time potentially.

 

I am not sure there is credibility in any accusation until the accuser puts up their hand and say       Yes I, accuse,    unless of course they are underage or mentally poor.  If someone is charged in a legal court, supposedly innocent until proven guilty, but you know the names of both parties and can make your own judgment or opinion. How can you in this case, I do not know who the accuser's are.