- Jul 22, 2013
- 18,821
- 27,479
- AFL Club
- Carlton
On what we know to date large parts of this issue come down to circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is fine to build a successful case, but in law a circumstantial case must provide a narrative from Point A to Point B. Big juicy events along the path from A to B play well in public, but its the small steps of detail which lead the case through the steps in between that hold the case together.
So all the cries we hear "but they've got this and they've got that, how could they possibly need anything else?" display a profound lack of understanding of what's happening now, and what will happen when charges are laid and defended. As a circumstantial case the defence will NOT be focusing on the big juicy headlines. They'll be worrying away at minor links in the chain, attempting to create a breach in the chain of narrative.
Apart from that, the commonly held view that with each passing day it becomes less likely that infractions will result is plain silly, and backwards. With each passing day that a "nothing to see here' finding is not released, the probability of sanctions increases
So all the cries we hear "but they've got this and they've got that, how could they possibly need anything else?" display a profound lack of understanding of what's happening now, and what will happen when charges are laid and defended. As a circumstantial case the defence will NOT be focusing on the big juicy headlines. They'll be worrying away at minor links in the chain, attempting to create a breach in the chain of narrative.
Apart from that, the commonly held view that with each passing day it becomes less likely that infractions will result is plain silly, and backwards. With each passing day that a "nothing to see here' finding is not released, the probability of sanctions increases