ASADA's 'star witness' ready to pull out

[kfc1]

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport...bers-probe-asada/story-fnca0u4y-1227127489525

The Australian can reveal ASADA spent several hours yesterday morning preparing its key witness Shane Charter, a self-styled anti-ageing consultant who imported a banned peptide that ASADA alleges was administered to Essendon players by Mr Dank during 2012. As of last night, Mr Charter had not agreed to appear as a witness in the case nor sign a statutory declaration affirming the evidence he provided to ASADA’s investigators last year. He has been advised by his lawyer not to testify or swear to his evidence.

Can't believe there isn't a thread on such a big piece of information already.

 

[CozzaD]

You couldn't script this up. Farce.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I just posted it in another thread. But it does deserve it's own thread:

indeed. But can you come up with even a remotely plausible scenario the ACC are coercing him into helping ASADA? I can't. Only the exact opposite.

this caught my eye:

Mr Charter met his lawyers this week to discuss whether appearing as a witness in the ASADA case would put him at risk of self-incrimination. The current criminal proceedings against him, the result of a sting operation last year by Victoria Police detectives from the anti-gangland Purana taskforce, are not related to the Essendon case.

do you reckon his lawyers were saying to him "yeah nah it's cool mate, go for it?"

I don't

I recall quite a few people heatedly disagreeing with my very reasonable thought processes around this.

As of last night, Charters isn't even willing to affirm the evidence he has already provided.

Like I said, pretty hard to mount a case when your key witness can't testify...

 

[coryne]

EFC supporters rejoicing in the prospect of evidence linking the club to the use of PED being inadmissible (due to the witness pulling out). Shock, horror .............

 

[imperial_oz]

I just posted it in another thread. But it does deserve it's own thread:




I recall quite a few people heatedly disagreeing with my very reasonable thought processes around this.

As of last night, Charters isn't even willing to affirm the evidence he has already provided.

Like I said, pretty hard to mount a case when your key witness can't testify...

The alternative available to ASADA is if the case fails in the AFL tribunal to appeal to CAS where a witness can be offered immunity to prosecution. Either was it will be interesting to see how this works out

 

[Glorious couch life]

Saga keeps on giving. Will we ever get to see the evidence tested? Article is behind a paywall, and I cbf looking around for it on my phone... Does it say whether Charter testifying is dependent on a closed hearing?

 

[mxett]

EFC supporters rejoicing in the prospect of evidence linking the club to the use of PED being inadmissible (due to the witness pulling out). Shock, horror .............

If the person who provided that evidence wasnt willing to have it tested under cross examination then fair enough

 

[Lance Uppercut]

EFC supporters rejoicing in the prospect of evidence linking the club to the use of PED being inadmissible (due to the witness pulling out). Shock, horror .............

"rejoicing"

Can you point to any rejoicing?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

The alternative available to ASADA is if the case fails in the AFL tribunal to appeal to CAS where a witness can be offered immunity to prosecution. Either was it will be interesting to see how this works out

it simply comes back to the point I was making: why?

Why would Charters agree to testify when he has his own troubles, even if it meant he could be immune to prosecution surrounding matters he testifies about?

No-one has ever given a single convincing response. And clearly Charters' lawyers agree. There is no benefit for him doing it. None.

I don't believe CAS can compel witnesses, is this true to the best of your knowledge?

 

[The 747]

Is that a Chip Le Grand article?

 

[Suma Magic]

I'd heard that the evidence is so weak that it won't matter either way, and that essendon players will definitely get off.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I'd heard that the evidence is so weak that it won't matter either way, and that essendon players will definitely get off.

apparently Caroline Wilson said so on radio last night too, but I didn't hear it, and to be honest, I can't keep up with whether the HTB considers her credible or not

 

[imperial_oz]

it simply comes back to the point I was making: why?

Why would Charters agree to testify when he has his own troubles, even if it meant he could be immune to prosecution surrounding matters he testifies about?

No-one has ever given a single convincing response. And clearly Charters' lawyers agree. There is no benefit for him doing it. None.

I don't believe CAS can compel witnesses, is this true to the best of your knowledge?

I don't know that any court can compell witnesses if they refuse to answer questions...well, not in Australia. There are a few countries I can think of that aren't quite so well behaved. Short of moving the tribunal to North Korea, it may be a bit of a problem.

It really depends why he may refuse to testify. If it is only due to self incrimination then immunity may get him to change his mind.

Of course, if ASADA or ACC etc have his records then his testimony may be highly desirable not actually necessary to build the case. Its all speculation at this point and its based on a single article by Chip Legrand who hasn't been notable for his accuracy so far. Article also indicates that its public hearings that may be the problem here.

I don't disagree with your original premise (from some time back as I recall) that there are factors mitigating against Charters testifying but its yet to happen. I think there are also factors that would encourage him to testify. Either way really isn't assured at this point.

 

[Albert Ross]

I don't know that any court can compell witnesses if they refuse to answer questions...well, not in Australia. There are a few countries I can think of that aren't quite so well behaved. Short of moving the tribunal to North Korea, it may be a bit of a problem.

It isn't a court it is an AFL Tribunal. Would you go if Dillon asked you to?

 

[Sector 7G]

I'd heard that the evidence is so weak that it won't matter either way, and that essendon players will definitely get off.

Is the evidence as weak as the ASADA's case in the Federal Court was reported to be?

 

[imperial_oz]

It isn't a court it is an AFL Tribunal. Would you go if Dillon asked you to?

I was referring to CAS if it goes past the AFL tribunal. CAS can protect witnesses where the tribunal cannot

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Is the evidence as weak as the ASADA's case in the Federal Court was reported to be?

I get the snide point you are trying to make, but:

• it wasn't reported to be weak, and
• trying to draw parallels between a narrow legal argument about whether an investigation is legal, and the actual prosecution of that case is really kind of silly

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

I'd heard that the evidence is so weak that it won't matter either way, and that essendon players will definitely get off.

I've heard that it's just 350 pages of "we've got nothing" written over and over again.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I don't know that any court can compell witnesses if they refuse to answer questions...well, not in Australia. There are a few countries I can think of that aren't quite so well behaved. Short of moving the tribunal to North Korea, it may be a bit of a problem.

It really depends why he may refuse to testify. If it is only due to self incrimination then immunity may get him to change his mind.

Of course, if ASADA or ACC etc have his records then his testimony may be highly desirable not actually necessary to build the case. Its all speculation at this point and its based on a single article by Chip Legrand who hasn't been notable for his accuracy so far. Article also indicates that its public hearings that may be the problem here.

I don't disagree with your original premise (from some time back as I recall) that there are factors mitigating against Charters testifying but its yet to happen. I think there are also factors that would encourage him to testify. Either way really isn't assured at this point.

because I've very much respected your input throughout this saga, I would love to know what factors you believe there are that would encourage him to testify. Are you referring to the "brownie points" scenario?

 

[the PILL]

I'm fairly proud of us holding out until Charters crumbled actually as I have always suspected the w***er to be full of s**t chasing his 5 minutes of fame...

This a huge deal in the puzzel if you look at it logicly and ASADA would be pissed... Their little swifty to seem relevant on this entire saga is about to end them..

 

[Catastic82]

Won't he just be treated as a hostile witness anyway and won't need to testify?

Not a law guru but that's my limited understanding, could be very wrong but it would be an absolute disgrace if the EFC gets cleared due to Charter changing his mind.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Won't he just be treated as a hostile witness anyway and won't need to testify?

Not a law guru but that's my limited understanding, could be very wrong but it would be an absolute disgrace if the EFC gets cleared due to Charter changing his mind.

you don't even know what his testimony was, so how can you say that?

 

[Hinkley Power]

I thought the bombers wanted to fnd out what substances were injected into the players?

Arent the players interested in what they were injected with?

Very quiet and docile are these 34 aren't they?

Why isn't anybody suing Charter or Dank or Alavi or the outside clinics?

Something putrid has been wafting over melbourne skies and it's coming from Tuallamarine

 

[Catastic82]

you don't even know what his testimony was, so how can you say that?

Neither do you so I wouldn't be celebrating too early, no one knows what the evidence/testimonies are yet.

Here's hoping for a public hearings so the truth finally comes out and hopefully EFC gets punished for what they have conducted.

 

[peppy la pew]

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport...bers-probe-asada/story-fnca0u4y-1227127489525



Can't believe there isn't a thread on such a big piece of information already.

Why would ASADA spends hours preparing and grooming him to appear as a witness, when his lawyer has told him not to appear or swear in evidence.
If he didn't agree to appear or even sign a stat dec, then why on earth would ASADA spend hours preparing him.

If he is under investigation by the ACC, then he will be looking after no1 first and foremost.

Another rubbish article. However I'm only going off the op's paragraph.