- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,322
- 21,634
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I always read Donners' posts closely. The insight from those posts almost single-handedly offsets the rest of the "hang the scum!!!" drivel on this board.
Current Charges laid in alleged sex attack on 14-year-old girl at St Albans Park
- Thread starter _Mike_
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I always read Donners' posts closely. The insight from those posts almost single-handedly offsets the rest of the "hang the scum!!!" drivel on this board.
- Apr 2, 2013
- 10,985
- 16,395
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
True. But in this case just maybe it goes the other way. And believe me I'm far from a fan of the Legal System.
"So it is possible the young victim at the centre of this case is simply emotionally unable to go through the extended suffering of being the primary witness in the trial of her three alleged perpetrators.
Her family confirmed last night that this was the case, that she was too traumatised to take the stand and that they had requested the case be dropped."
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...d/news-story/852fcb40b71c23b71fe0f8e3aabb98ef
Her family confirmed last night that this was the case, that she was too traumatised to take the stand and that they had requested the case be dropped."
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...d/news-story/852fcb40b71c23b71fe0f8e3aabb98ef
That is unfortunate.
It's worth bearing in mind as well that discontinuing the case leaves open the possibility of charging them again at a later time, which having them acquitted at trial would not.
It's worth bearing in mind as well that discontinuing the case leaves open the possibility of charging them again at a later time, which having them acquitted at trial would not.
In theory yes, but in practice that almost never happens.
The defence would have a pretty strong abuse of process argument to get any new proceeding permanently stayed.
It is normally made quite clear to complainants who wish to withdraw that there will not be another opportunity.
- Jan 15, 2012
- 48,680
- 49,499
- AFL Club
- Richmond
this is awful
Agent peddles $250,000 interview over Wilds’ rape case
Harrison Tippet, Geelong Advertiser
THE family of three men accused of raping a 14-year-old girl appear to be trying to profit from their story.
A man claiming to represent the family of Kevin, Allan and Brodie Wild — who were set to face a jury over the alleged 2015 rape of the girl in St Albans Park — approached the Geelong Advertiseroffering to sell their story for $250,000.
Charges against the trio were dropped last week, with the family of the alleged victim telling the Addy they had pulled out of the case as the teen was too traumatised to face trial.
Gary Brown, a partner with Melbourne-based accounting firm Inca Partners, yesterday claimed to represent Allan and Kevin, as well as brother Rowan and mother Megan.
Mr Brown, who claimed to be the family’s accountant, offered a paid written interview with the family for $250,000.
“If the Advertiser would be interested in having the actual facts, my clients would be interested in selling the story,” an email from Mr Brown read.
“I’ve got the whole Wild family as clients,” he said on Monday. “They want a sizeable amount — it depends on what information you guys want.
“(Their story) would sell a sizeable amount of papers.”
Mr Brown also asked the Addy for suggestions on how to “get around” current court-imposed suppression orders — of which he had a copy, despite accountants not typically having access to such documents.
The Advertiser was unable to confirm details of the proposed deal with Wild family members, with Mr Brown unwilling to provide hard evidence he represented the family. But Mr Brown was knowledgeable of the family and the court proceedings.
Victorian Centres Against Sexual Assault Forum spokeswoman Carolyn Worth slammed the apparent attempt to sell the story.
“I actually think that’s really quite reprehensible,” Ms Worth said.
“They’re trying to profit from somebody’s suffering — and I think that’s quite unethical and immoral.”
Prosecutors told the Supreme Court last Thursday they were discontinuing the case against Allan, Kevin and Brodie Wild.
A sister of the teenage girl last week said: “The prosecution dropped the case at the request of my sister. My sister is traumatised by what happened and would have had to relive it again on the stand, knowing every word would be scrutinised and held against her. She was 14 at the time and this has scarred her deeply.”
The three men were committed to stand trial last year, pleading not guilty to rape and related charges.
At the time, seasoned detectives labelled the alleged incident one of the worst sexual assault cases that they had ever seen.
Originally published as Alleged rapists attempt to sell story
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...e/news-story/72ad4fa4e1ca65a1f0f2e4eb184875a4
Agent peddles $250,000 interview over Wilds’ rape case
Harrison Tippet, Geelong Advertiser
THE family of three men accused of raping a 14-year-old girl appear to be trying to profit from their story.
A man claiming to represent the family of Kevin, Allan and Brodie Wild — who were set to face a jury over the alleged 2015 rape of the girl in St Albans Park — approached the Geelong Advertiseroffering to sell their story for $250,000.
Charges against the trio were dropped last week, with the family of the alleged victim telling the Addy they had pulled out of the case as the teen was too traumatised to face trial.
Gary Brown, a partner with Melbourne-based accounting firm Inca Partners, yesterday claimed to represent Allan and Kevin, as well as brother Rowan and mother Megan.
Mr Brown, who claimed to be the family’s accountant, offered a paid written interview with the family for $250,000.
“If the Advertiser would be interested in having the actual facts, my clients would be interested in selling the story,” an email from Mr Brown read.
“I’ve got the whole Wild family as clients,” he said on Monday. “They want a sizeable amount — it depends on what information you guys want.
“(Their story) would sell a sizeable amount of papers.”
Mr Brown also asked the Addy for suggestions on how to “get around” current court-imposed suppression orders — of which he had a copy, despite accountants not typically having access to such documents.
The Advertiser was unable to confirm details of the proposed deal with Wild family members, with Mr Brown unwilling to provide hard evidence he represented the family. But Mr Brown was knowledgeable of the family and the court proceedings.
Victorian Centres Against Sexual Assault Forum spokeswoman Carolyn Worth slammed the apparent attempt to sell the story.
“I actually think that’s really quite reprehensible,” Ms Worth said.
“They’re trying to profit from somebody’s suffering — and I think that’s quite unethical and immoral.”
Prosecutors told the Supreme Court last Thursday they were discontinuing the case against Allan, Kevin and Brodie Wild.
A sister of the teenage girl last week said: “The prosecution dropped the case at the request of my sister. My sister is traumatised by what happened and would have had to relive it again on the stand, knowing every word would be scrutinised and held against her. She was 14 at the time and this has scarred her deeply.”
The three men were committed to stand trial last year, pleading not guilty to rape and related charges.
At the time, seasoned detectives labelled the alleged incident one of the worst sexual assault cases that they had ever seen.
Originally published as Alleged rapists attempt to sell story
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...e/news-story/72ad4fa4e1ca65a1f0f2e4eb184875a4
Jesus Christ, that family and the "agent" should do the world a favour and get in the grave. And I say that as someone who normally mocks hysterical calls for people to "rot in jail" or "death penalty isn't good enough". Trying to profit when they've likely already escaped justice for their alleged actions is beyond disgusting.
Kynge of Begrem
Norm Smith Medallist
I also don't subscribe to the vigilante 'hang them high' nonsense that we often see in relation to cases like this, but, if this is accurate, let's form a posse and hang them high.
rdhopkins2
Carpe Diem
What a disgrace. Just sickening. Absolute mongrels.
Poor girl.
That accounting firm are now on my blacklist too.
Poor girl.
That accounting firm are now on my blacklist too.
- Apr 27, 2014
- 6,367
- 9,611
- AFL Club
- Richmond
But the accused are not 16 year olds...consent is therefore impossible, isn't it? Any evidence of sexual activity is evidence of an offence and the DPP could proceed without involving the poor girl? Or have I been watching too much US TV?
Belief on reasonable grounds that she was 16 is a defence.
- Apr 27, 2014
- 6,367
- 9,611
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Thought I read those gentlemen were reliably informed of the girls age by the girls companion.
Wonder for how young a girl the thought-she-was-16 has worked, 13? So little protection for teenagers in reality.
mrsbeard
Rookie
- Jan 15, 2017
- 21
- 14
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I doubt they have a s**t at the time of her age. Even if she was 16 or even 18 they most likely would have have raped her.
mrsbeard
Rookie
- Jan 15, 2017
- 21
- 14
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I think it's usually only in terms of cases where two people believe they are married where these defences tend to succeed. And that's usually given that the victim gave consent at the time if they are within two years of each other in age or something to that effect. So imo it's kind of redundant.
It's incredibly difficult to defend and prosecute.
That's not true.
Belief in age is a stand-alone defence to this charge. Marriage and being within 2 years of each other are separate aspects.
Belief in age as a defence is not that uncommon. There was a much-publicised recent example of a 31-year-old security guard at the Children's Court who had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old.
She claimed to be 17, and he was only convicted of one incident which occurred after police told him her real age.
A number of these cases involve children who purport to be older than they are, which creates a difficult question as to whether there was a reasonable belief that they were younger.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/g...-protect-minors-in-court-20170319-gv1h6i.html
Bit of an update.
It's disturbing to think how many cases don't go to trial for similar reasons. I reckon there's a slight chance this one gets opened up again in the future. I hope it does, and I hope the girl is in a well enough state to do so if it does.
Bit of an update.
It's disturbing to think how many cases don't go to trial for similar reasons. I reckon there's a slight chance this one gets opened up again in the future. I hope it does, and I hope the girl is in a well enough state to do so if it does.
craffles
Brownlow Medallist
That article is written with the automatic presumption of guilt of the brothers. Whilst I admit the evidence is compelling, removing all emotion from it she needs to appear in court to be cross examined. Anyone can pre record lies and this would be greatly abused by even the least savvy of prosecution lawyers if it were put into place.
I genuinely feel for the girl but we need processes in place to ensure a fair and just outcome for all involved, including the accused (presumption of innocence before guilt)
Nobody is saying (at least in that article) that she shouldn't be cross-examined.
Pre-recording of cross-examination of children has been going on in Victoria for 11 years.
- Apr 27, 2014
- 6,367
- 9,611
- AFL Club
- Richmond
But again, the men involved were clearly informed of the girls age by her companion (according to what has been made public in this case)
What's the equivalent of Statutory Rape in Vic law? The state only needs physical evidence to pursue this, together with statements already taken from the girl imo, she need not be involved any further.
Someone tell me why the DPP is not acting here?
Short answer - because what you get in the media is not the full picture.
If only cases were so simple.
craffles
Brownlow Medallist
Forgive my ignorance but assuming legal definition of a child is below 16 then how come she can't pre record? Because she is now over that age?
She could have. The age limit is 18, and it's based on when charges were filed, so she'd easily fall within the eligibility.
It's a matter for the court's discretion, but if there's a decent reason for it they'd normally have no issue.
- Apr 27, 2014
- 6,367
- 9,611
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I see, indeed we can only guess based on what is revealed publicly.
Keeping in mind this case will forever remain allegations only, what worries me is the system inevitably builds up a 'how to' guide for potential offenders out there.
Generally the guide says, if you want to commit an offence, best commit it against the young
Not just against the young, but against the troubled young. Most won't report it, and those who do will often drop out, or will have such limited credibility and reliability that a conviction is unlikely.
It's not news, I'm afraid - offenders have been targeting such people for many years. There's even a specific police taskforce for it.
Cognitively impaired victims are even easier targets, and are taken advantage of at appalling rates.
