20 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.

 

once the lawyers get involved they will be making lots of demands on the panel. like for example insisting the complainants be re-questioned/interrogated in the lawyers presence with them able to ask questions in the interests of natural justice etc. and all the other tricks they are good at.   i think it will be very difficult for the panel to wrap it up quickly unless any evidence unearthed is quite unequivocal

we will just have to wait and see. i doubt though the panel will be giving any official blow by blow summaries along the way. the media of course will be digging furiously and i'd expect some leaks happening. 

Edited September 25, 20222 yr by daisycutter
added some highlighting

Just now, Ugottobekidding said:

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.

Ok thanks. This is going to a very interesting “trial” Do you think it will go to court or be resolved at AFL Level?

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

once the lawyers get involved they will be making lots of demands on the panel. like for example insisting the complainants be re-questioned/interrogated in the lawyers presence with them able to ask questions in the interests of natural justice etc. and all the other tricks they are good at.   i think it will be very difficult for the panel to wrap it up quickly unless any evidence unearthed is quite unequivocal

we will just have to wait and see. i doubt though the panel will be giving any official blow by blow summaries along the way. the media of course will be digging furiously and i'd expect some leaks happening. 

Ah ok, I thought there wouldn't be lawyers involved in the first part as that is purely an independent investigation (which IMO is likely to just advise on what the next stage should be), rather than a tribunal/court case etc of some sort.

But yeah, you're right, its absolutely a wait and see scenario.

7 minutes ago, 640MD said:

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.

Not 100% sure what point you're trying to make here tbh, but from what I understand this is (at least as yet) not a legal court case so there is no need for any kind of pressing charges or "I accuse" to begin the investigation into the report. This also applies to the notion of "innocent until proven guilty".

I'm sure the people who prepared the report and those now investigating will have the names of all involved and speak to all of them, there's no need for those names to be public I wouldn't have thought.

6 hours ago, FlashInThePan said:

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

I read the posts/thread. In a thread about an article by Russell Jackson you make comments about journos being unaccountable keyboard warriors. The person you responded to was implying that journos are unaccountable throwing out false allegations and the real victims are the accused perpetrators. In this case Clarkson, Fagan and Burt.

4 hours 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 is someone who gives evidence or provides testimony. In this instance it would be someone providing evidence/testimony to the investigation.

15 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Not 100% sure what point you're trying to make here tbh, but from what I understand this is (at least as yet) not a legal court case so there is no need for any kind of pressing charges or "I accuse" to begin the investigation into the report. This also applies to the notion of "innocent until proven guilty".

I'm sure the people who prepared the report and those now investigating will have the names of all involved and speak to all of them, there's no need for those names to be public I wouldn't have thought.

How can anyone believe what is written without  attribution 

if this is not a legal court it is an open kangaroo court, everyone seems to accepts the coaches are guilty. 
there will be some truth perhaps but only perhaps. 

but very little is said about any rebuttal and without giving the accusers names it might be BS.  Being able to take legal action later Is not a substitute. .

the reporters should have reported both sides of the storey . 
it’s like I know what numbers are up for lotto next week   And I have no like or dislike for those accused but it is not fair !

Now bags of little white powder, I can decide for myself the probability.

The investigation needs to happen.

3 minutes ago, 640MD said:

How can anyone believe what is written without  attribution 

if this is not a legal court it is an open kangaroo court, everyone seems to accepts the coaches are guilty. 
there will be some truth perhaps but only perhaps. 

but very little is said about any rebuttal and without giving the accusers names it might be BS.  Being able to take legal action later Is not a substitute. .

the reporters should have reported both sides of the storey . 
it’s like I know what numbers are up for lotto next week   And I have no like or dislike for those accused but it is not fair !

Now bags of little white powder, I can decide for myself the probability.

Well said. The early “trial by public” is a huge problem in today’s social media driven world. 

Not defending anyone here, if they are guilty, then they deserve every minute of whatever coaching ban comes their way. 

But everyone needs to take a chill pill for at least a month, maybe 2. Then come back and assess things when we know more details. 
 

2 minutes ago, 640MD said:

How can anyone believe what is written without  attribution

The names weren't made public, but clearly they won't be anonymous in the actual investigation. Already covered that.

2 minutes ago, 640MD said:

if this is not a legal court it is an open kangaroo court, everyone seems to accepts the coaches are guilty. 
there will be some truth perhaps but only perhaps.

It's not a court at all. It's an independent investigation into an existing report. There have been no charges, no one has been fired, no one has been sued etc.

2 minutes ago, 640MD said:

but very little is said about any rebuttal and without giving the accusers names it might be BS.  Being able to take legal action later Is not a substitute. .

Again, the names aren't public, but that has absolutely no effect on the investigation.

2 minutes ago, 640MD said:

the reporters should have reported both sides of the storey . 

it’s like I know what numbers are up for lotto next week   And I have no like or dislike for those accused but it is not fair !

They were all given the usual right of reply/comment by Russell Jackson and they chose not to take it.

2 minutes ago, 640MD said:

Now bags of little white powder, I can decide for myself the probability.

Are you sure? But the "accused" said it was "anti-inflammatories" and surely you have to consider both sides of the story?

8 minutes ago, layzie said:

The investigation needs to happen.

It already is. In fact Gil has said he'll likely postpone his retirement so as to not depart while it's ongoing.

Just now, Lord Nev said:

It already is. In fact Gil has said he'll likely postpone his retirement so as to not depart while it's ongoing.

Sorry I mean we need the completion of it to come quick. The speculating is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

I don't wish to defend anyone either, after investigation a certain level of guilt may be apparent. But to report a story and you have not interviewed those accused (Both Fagan and the other bloke said they had not been contacted, until just prior to publishing)

Is plainly biased and one sided.  Poor journalism, only out for the scoop and notariety.

Donald Trump fake news,  and I can believe it was "anti-inflammatories" ,  everyone I know sprinkles that on their porridge.

or perhaps not.

5 minutes ago, 640MD said:

I don't wish to defend anyone either, after investigation a certain level of guilt may be apparent. But to report a story and you have not interviewed those accused (Both Fagan and the other bloke said they had not been contacted, until just prior to publishing)

Is plainly biased and one sided.  Poor journalism, only out for the scoop and notariety.

Donald Trump fake news,  and I can believe it was "anti-inflammatories" ,  everyone I know sprinkles that on their porridge.

or perhaps not.

You reckon fake news?

17 hours 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

Allegedly Sir!

I wonder if Hawthorn gave the 3 accused a 'heads up' on what was in the report when they received it.  I'm sure they would have if they still worked there.

It still may not have prepared them for the content of the ABC article which had new claims in it.

14 minutes ago, 640MD said:

I don't wish to defend anyone either, after investigation a certain level of guilt may be apparent. But to report a story and you have not interviewed those accused (Both Fagan and the other bloke said they had not been contacted, until just prior to publishing)

Is plainly biased and one sided.  Poor journalism, only out for the scoop and notariety.

Donald Trump fake news,  and I can believe it was "anti-inflammatories" ,  everyone I know sprinkles that on their porridge.

or perhaps not.

This unfortunately is what a portion of society will think and rightly so. 

If its not about $$ (as is the case for ABC), then you have to question whether there is egotism involved. Giving the coaches 24 hours to respond (to an email and voicemail) on what is probably one of the biggest controversies in AFL history just beggars belief.

To me it is clear there was a timeline to adhere to which centered around having the story in circulation in the lead up to the Grand Final. Sticking to that timeline was paramount and that meant going about consultation with all stakeholders in a sloppy and stealthy way. 

On 9/21/2022 at 5:15 PM, Jibroni said:

Bad decision by Brisbane to stand down Fagan, what if he is cleared of these allegations?

I wonder why the ABC did not hear both sides of the story before going public. Some people in the media would want to be very careful about what they say about this. Private conversations without any evidence of the actual conversation will have every lawyer lining up on behalf of Fagan and Clarko for damages for slander. Shocking if this is fact but I tend to think there are two sides to every story, especially emotive ones.

Fagan did have an opportunity to provide comment:

https://twitter.com/rustyjacko/status/1572564608954826752?s=20&t=-k9Rg1BQiwXtqrdZX7nVhQ

Has any journo or person of note in the AFL industry come out and said based on what we know right now, person "x" should lose their job or be punished?  I haven't heard anyone say any such thing.  Every comment has always come with the provision that if what has been accused is found to be true then severe punishments should follow.  No one is jumping the gun and wanting punishments be handed out right now.

On 9/24/2022 at 7:49 AM, sue said:

1. It was perfectly reasonable for the Hawthorn review to only question those making allegations.  That review was not charged with establishing the truth of the allegations by interviewing the alleged offenders.  That should be done by a seperate investigation by the club or the AFL.  A bit like the Crown prosecution service may decide there is a case to answer which then goes to trial where everyone gets to present their case.

For all those who are still of the belief that the accused “weren’t but should’ve been given an opportunity to respond” or that the accused were “hung out to dry” and “whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?” etc., the above is the perfect explanation imho. Especially the bolded part. 

47 minutes ago, layzie said:

You reckon fake news?

In my view,  Donald has a lot to answer for.    He has single handedly sliced and diced the Republican Party and half the US population,

4 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

For all those who are still of the belief that the accused “weren’t but should’ve been given an opportunity to respond” or that the accused were “hung out to dry” and “whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?” etc., the above is the perfect explanation imho. Especially the bolded part. 

If it was within Hawthorn FC and stayed there perhaps but the Journalists got hold of it or were given it, and whether true or not it has ruined all the accused and North Melb and Brisbane.  Mud sticks. especially Merri river mud from cricket pitches on football fields.

14 minutes ago, 640MD said:

In my view,  Donald has a lot to answer for.    He has single handedly sliced and diced the Republican Party and half the US population,

But do you reckon that applies with this too? 

15 minutes ago, 640MD said:

If it was within Hawthorn FC and stayed there perhaps but the Journalists got hold of it or were given it, and whether true or not it has ruined all the accused and North Melb and Brisbane.  Mud sticks. especially Merri river mud from cricket pitches on football fields.

You can't seriously believe that?  Yes, disturbing and serious allegations have come to light, and like when they do in all aspects of life, the accused, while not yet proven guilty, face some consequences.  Teachers and policemen get stood down if serious accusations are made.  People get arrested and spend time behind bars well before a case gets heard in a court.

If these accusations are proven to be false, no person or club will be "ruined".  Yes, some nuffies will bring it up down the track, but mud won't stick with anyone that matters. 

A lot of alarmist nonsense is getting thrown around right now.

17 hours ago, daisycutter said:

 for example insisting the complainants be re-questioned/interrogated in the lawyers presence with them able to ask questions in the interests of natural justice etc. and all the other tricks they are good at

Just to clarify I’m not a lawyer, but how is being able to question your accuser through legal representation a ‘trick’?