I suspect this whole affair will end up in an inconclusive he said, she said scenario. Nothing proven or disproven

That being the case the Lions and North will have a huge call to make

52 minutes ago, binman said:

This is the heart of the issue.

You, like many, appear to be conflating the accusations against Fagan and Clarkson with those against the club, which are much broader than headline grabbing accusations (eg forced termination of pregnancies)

You say 'these very allegations have been denied'. What allegations have been denied?

As far as i'm aware Clarkson and Fagan have only denied telling a player their partner should terminate their pregnancy. And Pagan made a general comment in his media release denying HE was culturally safe with Aboriginal players.

To be clear, Hawthorn, or Fagan and Clarkson for that matter, have not denied the central issue  - that the evidence from the players indicates the club was seemingly culturally unsafe in the period the report covered (noting his is not a proven fact).

The noise around Fagan and Clarkson just distracts from the central issue - cultural safety.

As a proponent of free speech, i presume you agree that the players had every right to say what they said. They didn't put the comments into the public arena - the ABC did.

Of course, when speaking to a reporter they would assume it would be reported, but one also assumes the ABC did their due diligence in terms of things such as checking sources, corroborating any accusations and assessing legal exposure. If they didn't they are rightly exposed to legal action 

People are free to make their own assessment of the comments from the player's and their families. 

Fagan and Clarkson will have their opportunity to tell their side of the story, both as part of the AFL investigation and in the  media, who will be gagging to give them both air time.

And people will be equally free to make their own assessment of those comments.

If that doesn't satisfy Pagan and Clarkson, they can take the ABC (not the players) to court for defamation

It was stupid, and so on point, by the AFL to not get ahead of the story and respond immediately they received the report, for example by coming out and doing what they now have been forced to (ie setting up a panel and investigating).

Instead they chose to sit on the report, presumably till after the GF, and left the door wide open for a news outlet to gazump them.  And the ABC obliged. 

The players don't owe anyone anything and are under no obligation, legally or morally, to participate in any way with an AFL investigation.

The players participated in a process commissioned and initiated by Hawthorn. What more do they need to do? They certainly have no obligation to justify or substantiate their claims.

And why would they have any interest in being interviewed again? What benefit would they derive from participating in the AFL investigation?

If they do decide to go down the legal path then they will have to substantiate their claims. 

Perhaps you think they do have a moral obligation to participate in the AFL investigation given the impact on Clarkson and Fagan's reputation?

I disagree, but for the sake of argument lets say i don't. Its neither here nor there if they have a moral obligation to participate. The bottom line is they can't be legally compelled to participate in an AFL investigation, which leaves only the courts as an option to have their 'stories tested'. 

If WorkCover get involved they might be interviewed as part of that process and any resulting legal action.

If the players sue Hawthorn their claims will be tested in court (assuming no settlement) 

If Fagan and Clarkson sue the ABC for defamation their claims will be tested in court.

But the players can leave the AFL to their own devices with their investigation. 

 

Exactly right.

The HFC initiated this investigation. The players did not seek this out, the HFC contacted them to ask them for their statements. What incentive do they have to fabricate this story? And not just one past player but at least 3 and their partners, and if it is to be believed at least one former assistant and a player manager who can corroborate at least part of their stories? They did not seek the HFC or media out, the HFC asked them for their accounts of their time at the HFC. They have provided statements which should be enough for the AFL's investigation to work off. The investigators may go back to them to clarify points but I can't see why they would be required to begin the process anew.

I'm not labelling Clarkson, Fagan, Burt or HFC guilty at this stage but I am extremely interested in the pending investigation because as things stand it does not look good for the accused. The allegations are quite specific, the multiple accounts appear to corroborate each other and there appears to be a former assistant and former players manager who will at least partly corroborate the allegations Based on what has transpired already I would be stunned if the accused outright denied the allegations, rather I expect they have a different perspective if events which will be interesting in itself.

 

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

 

It seems that the concerns for no evidence will get gradually wiped as more and more of these instances come to light. 

6 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

 

paywall

can you provide snippets?

5 minutes ago, layzie said:

It seems that the concerns for no evidence will get gradually wiped as more and more of these instances come to light. 

Steadily piling up….

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

paywall

can you provide snippets?

 

 

A Hawthorn player’s partner claimed that he had been pressured to leave the home they shared, in a desperate email to then-President Andrew Newbold, but her pleas for help were dismissed, according to the club’s explosive racism Review.

But Newbold – now an AFL commissioner – says he never saw the emails and definitely had not responded to them, though could not rule out someone else in the club having done so on his behalf.

Asked on Tuesday night by the Herald Sun about the alleged exchange, Newbold said: “I did not author that email.

“I want to refute that absolutely. It’s not my language I would use.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The player’s partner went on to tell the then-club president in another email that she was experiencing “severe anxiety attacks”, “vomiting blood” and “can’t see the light anymore”, amid her stress over the situation.

An email identified in the report as being from Newbold responded that it was “not appropriate” that he become involved.

“I have spoken to Jason who is familiar with the facts as I am not,” the report detailed Newbold as writing on Monday, March 25, 2013.

“Your issues are really beyond my scope of expertise and influence. I’m sorry but it is not really appropriate that I become involved.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In additional comments made to the Herald Sun on Tuesday night, Newbold said: “Those emails as I understand it went to my hawthornfc address, which I had no access to.

“I haven’t seen them, I don’t know who they are from. I haven’t seen the report, which is appropriate.

“I’m told there is an email around 23 May, I have checked personal email box and I have no emails form any complaints on 23 May 2013.’’

Told it was in March, he said: “Whatever, I’ve checked. I did not write that email.

 

11 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

 

 

A Hawthorn player’s partner claimed that he had been pressured to leave the home they shared, in a desperate email to then-President Andrew Newbold, but her pleas for help were dismissed, according to the club’s explosive racism Review.

But Newbold – now an AFL commissioner – says he never saw the emails and definitely had not responded to them, though could not rule out someone else in the club having done so on his behalf.

Asked on Tuesday night by the Herald Sun about the alleged exchange, Newbold said: “I did not author that email.

“I want to refute that absolutely. It’s not my language I would use.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The player’s partner went on to tell the then-club president in another email that she was experiencing “severe anxiety attacks”, “vomiting blood” and “can’t see the light anymore”, amid her stress over the situation.

An email identified in the report as being from Newbold responded that it was “not appropriate” that he become involved.

“I have spoken to Jason who is familiar with the facts as I am not,” the report detailed Newbold as writing on Monday, March 25, 2013.

“Your issues are really beyond my scope of expertise and influence. I’m sorry but it is not really appropriate that I become involved.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In additional comments made to the Herald Sun on Tuesday night, Newbold said: “Those emails as I understand it went to my hawthornfc address, which I had no access to.

“I haven’t seen them, I don’t know who they are from. I haven’t seen the report, which is appropriate.

“I’m told there is an email around 23 May, I have checked personal email box and I have no emails form any complaints on 23 May 2013.’’

Told it was in March, he said: “Whatever, I’ve checked. I did not write that email.

 

And more people become involved…..

1 hour ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

I'd hate to be an accused and have Demonland as my judge and jury.

Here's the thing Prodee. We aint in a court of law. We're posting on a footy forum.

The weight of evidence required to convict someone in court vs inform a personal opinion are very different things, surely you realise that.

The reaction from Demonland has pretty much universally been along the lines of: "Jeez they are some very serious allegations coming from a growing number of sources that would be oddly specific to make up. On the balance of probability these accusations likely carry weight. If this is shown to be the case, there will be very serious consequences for the perpetrators." 

A neighbour of mine was arrested on suspicion of murdering his wife. There was a bucket load of circumstantial evidence that he was guilty, but ultimately not enough proof to secure a conviction.

Would I have found him guilty if I was on the jury? No.

Am I glad the justice system places the burden of proof on the accuser rather than the accused? Yes.

Do I personally consider it far more likely than not that he is guilty? Also yes.

Sorry if it has been said but has Newbold been stood down from the commission or just given a leave of absence?

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Who do you consider would be unbiased? Or more to the point, who should be excluded due to perceived bias?

As I stated in my original post:

For any panel to be both credible and independent it should eschew the appointment of any person who might be seen as having, to use the legal term, an "apprehension of bias" by the public and the football community.

This principle would exclude any club officials, discrimination officers, aboriginal members and coaches representatives and also any attempt to introduce a gender balance.

A truly independent and credible panel should be comprised of independent outsiders who have an open mind, no preconceived notions and the ability to frame their investigations and questions to all participants with a view to establishing the facts.

49 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Here's the thing Prodee. We aint in a court of law. We're posting on a footy forum.

The weight of evidence required to convict someone in court vs inform a personal opinion are very different things, surely you realise that.

The reaction from Demonland has pretty much universally been along the lines of: "Jeez they are some very serious allegations coming from a growing number of sources that would be oddly specific to make up. On the balance of probability these accusations likely carry weight. If this is shown to be the case, there will be very serious consequences for the perpetrators." 

A neighbour of mine was arrested on suspicion of murdering his wife. There was a bucket load of circumstantial evidence that he was guilty, but ultimately not enough proof to secure a conviction.

Would I have found him guilty if I was on the jury? No.

Am I glad the justice system places the burden of proof on the accuser rather than the accused? Yes.

Do I personally consider it far more likely than not that he is guilty? Also yes.

You would have found him not guilty if you were on a Jury?

But your personal belief deep down was that he was guilty of the crime…

ok

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

 

 

A Hawthorn player’s partner claimed that he had been pressured to leave the home they shared, in a desperate email to then-President Andrew Newbold, but her pleas for help were dismissed, according to the club’s explosive racism Review.

But Newbold – now an AFL commissioner – says he never saw the emails and definitely had not responded to them, though could not rule out someone else in the club having done so on his behalf.

Asked on Tuesday night by the Herald Sun about the alleged exchange, Newbold said: “I did not author that email.

“I want to refute that absolutely. It’s not my language I would use.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The player’s partner went on to tell the then-club president in another email that she was experiencing “severe anxiety attacks”, “vomiting blood” and “can’t see the light anymore”, amid her stress over the situation.

An email identified in the report as being from Newbold responded that it was “not appropriate” that he become involved.

“I have spoken to Jason who is familiar with the facts as I am not,” the report detailed Newbold as writing on Monday, March 25, 2013.

“Your issues are really beyond my scope of expertise and influence. I’m sorry but it is not really appropriate that I become involved.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In additional comments made to the Herald Sun on Tuesday night, Newbold said: “Those emails as I understand it went to my hawthornfc address, which I had no access to.

“I haven’t seen them, I don’t know who they are from. I haven’t seen the report, which is appropriate.

“I’m told there is an email around 23 May, I have checked personal email box and I have no emails form any complaints on 23 May 2013.’’

Told it was in March, he said: “Whatever, I’ve checked. I did not write that email.

 

The old "whatever". Tried and true way to end a conversation.

1 hour ago, tiers said:

As I stated in my original post:

For any panel to be both credible and independent it should eschew the appointment of any person who might be seen as having, to use the legal term, an "apprehension of bias" by the public and the football community.

This principle would exclude any club officials, discrimination officers, aboriginal members and coaches representatives and also any attempt to introduce a gender balance.

A truly independent and credible panel should be comprised of independent outsiders who have an open mind, no preconceived notions and the ability to frame their investigations and questions to all participants with a view to establishing the facts.

By "aboriginal members" do you mean anyone of aboriginal descent?

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

You would have found him not guilty if you were on a Jury?

But your personal belief deep down was that he was guilty of the crime…

ok

Mate it's impossible to comment since I wasn't on the jury and didn't see the evidence they were presented with etc. All I'm saying is that if I was, say, 60% convinced that he was guilty of murder, that wouldn't be enough for me to find him guilty on a jury, but I'd have serious reservations about recommending the bloke as a potential dating candidate to a friend.

But that's besides the point - my point is aimed at those posters who argue that it's unreasonable to form an opinion on the matter before all the accusations have been tested in a court of law. It's frankly a ridiculous assertion given the circumstances.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

 

 

A Hawthorn player’s partner claimed that he had been pressured to leave the home they shared, in a desperate email to then-President Andrew Newbold, but her pleas for help were dismissed, according to the club’s explosive racism Review.

But Newbold – now an AFL commissioner – says he never saw the emails and definitely had not responded to them, though could not rule out someone else in the club having done so on his behalf.

Asked on Tuesday night by the Herald Sun about the alleged exchange, Newbold said: “I did not author that email.

“I want to refute that absolutely. It’s not my language I would use.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The player’s partner went on to tell the then-club president in another email that she was experiencing “severe anxiety attacks”, “vomiting blood” and “can’t see the light anymore”, amid her stress over the situation.

An email identified in the report as being from Newbold responded that it was “not appropriate” that he become involved.

“I have spoken to Jason who is familiar with the facts as I am not,” the report detailed Newbold as writing on Monday, March 25, 2013.

“Your issues are really beyond my scope of expertise and influence. I’m sorry but it is not really appropriate that I become involved.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In additional comments made to the Herald Sun on Tuesday night, Newbold said: “Those emails as I understand it went to my hawthornfc address, which I had no access to.

“I haven’t seen them, I don’t know who they are from. I haven’t seen the report, which is appropriate.

“I’m told there is an email around 23 May, I have checked personal email box and I have no emails form any complaints on 23 May 2013.’’

Told it was in March, he said: “Whatever, I’ve checked. I did not write that email.

 

If the email is that far back and he's only checking his inbox then maybe it got archived in MS exchange! 😀

3 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

 

 

In additional comments made to the Herald Sun on Tuesday night, Newbold said: “Those emails as I understand it went to my hawthornfc address, which I had no access to"

 

Does he mean he had no access to that email account at the time? Or that he no longer has access to that email account?

 

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Does he mean he had no access to that email account at the time? Or that he no longer has access to that email account?

Guessing here - but what I gathered from the full context of the article was that it was perhaps more of an 'admin' email with his name on it and his actual Hawthorn email was a different address that was private. The admin one was then monitored more by specific club admin staff rather than Newbold.

 

30 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Mate it's impossible to comment since I wasn't on the jury and didn't see the evidence they were presented with etc. All I'm saying is that if I was, say, 60% convinced that he was guilty of murder, that wouldn't be enough for me to find him guilty on a jury, but I'd have serious reservations about recommending the bloke as a potential dating candidate to a friend.

But that's besides the point - my point is aimed at those posters who argue that it's unreasonable to form an opinion on the matter before all the accusations have been tested in a court of law. It's frankly a ridiculous assertion given the circumstances.

 

Fair Comment. You had an element of doubt. 
But you still didn’t didn’t think he should be free to walk the streets. 
i haven’t been called up for jury duty. It would certainly be a new experience 

32 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

But there is no other way to handle this one. 
if the story hadn’t got out, nothing would be done. Lawyers will be involved in this, this is beyond just AFL. Mediation often has a Lawyer presence from both sides 

34 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

So this is the part where the process becomes the issue, rather than the actions?

 

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

Interesting statement. 
 

’However, as the allegations against me have been spread widely and sometimes as indisputable matters of facts,  I must state that my clear memory of the matters reported is very different’

So it’s not categorical denial that the matters occurred at all, it’s going to be about the character of what was said in so far as what was implied and what was inferred. 

If it straight up didn’t happen, he would come out and categorically deny the allegations. 

Edited September 28, 20222 yr by BoBo