Scandal Tom Silvagni convicted of rape

[The Feeder Club]

More food for thought for the supporters of Victoria's gross overuse of suppression orders that contravenes the fundamental principle of open justice

The document helping lawyers keep their clients’ names secret

A how-to guide for barristers representing high-profile clients outlines tactics for obtaining suppression orders and seeking favourable treatment from police.

www.smh.com.au

Some illustrative quotes from the article that is behind a paywall:

Barristers are being advised on how to keep high-profile clients accused of serious crimes out of the spotlight with a how-to guide outlining tactics for obtaining suppression orders and seeking favourable treatment from police. The instructional document, circulated among the state’s leading barristers and obtained by this masthead, provides advice on the best time to apply for a gag order and exactly what to ask psychiatrists to include in reports for those based on a risk of self-harm or deteriorating mental health.

Jason Bosland, an associate professor at the University of Melbourne who has published material on cases including suppression orders made in the trial of the late Cardinal George Pell, said the state had seen a “massive increase” in mental safety suppression order applications over the past 12 months.“It is a real problem,” he said. “If you are an applicant who can afford to get psychiatric reports to say, ‘I’ve assessed the person and any publicity could lead to disastrous consequences’, you’ve got a guaranteed order. It’s not acceptable.”

 

[Sarcoidevo]

I was fairly done with SOS and the Silvagni family before. Now I am glad that they are away from the club and, hopefully, won't be back.

The Silvagni's will always be linked with Carlton first & foremost

 

[Kappa]

More food for thought for the supporters of Victoria's gross overuse of suppression orders that contravenes the fundamental principle of open justice

The document helping lawyers keep their clients’ names secret

A how-to guide for barristers representing high-profile clients outlines tactics for obtaining suppression orders and seeking favourable treatment from police.

www.smh.com.au

Some illustrative quotes from the article that is behind a paywall:

If the judgement and case is made public after the party is found guilty, that is open justice?

 

[justlookingaround]

Any idea what Tom’s looking at?

2, 5, 10, 15 years?

I reckon 7 with a non parole period of 5

 

[The Feeder Club]

If the judgement and case is made public after the party is found guilty, that is open justice?

No as I have already replied to you before, open justice is about ensuing the PROCEEDINGS are open, so that regardless of whether the accused is found guilty or innocent, the process that led to the verdict is publicly scrutinised

 

[WillHayward]

Any idea what Tom’s looking at?

2, 5, 10, 15 years?

5-7 my guess

 

[MightyAnfield]

You do need to be careful when passing judgment on suppression orders.

People should keep in mind that we get our information on them from the media, and the media will ALWAYS oppose them. Because the media want to publish everything. They want their clicks, it's their business.

So as soon as there's any sort of suppression order they'll start with the familiar wailing... "different rules for them!!" "the rich protecting themselves!!" "it's all about how much money you have!!"

Its their usual cheap line that wins easy support.

Money doesn't buy suppression orders. It can certainly help, if you have a team of lawyers working on it for you, but it doesn't guarantee you shit. There isn't literally "different rules for the rich". That's absurd.

They can be granted for a range of different reasons including some very valid ones - publishing may compromise another case, for instance. This has often been the case and still the media will roll out their usual shit about "high priced lawyers winning suppression orders for the wealthy!!"... when it's simply not the case and it is in place for a good reason.

A judge makes a call on it and judges are one profession where I'm relatively happy to say... they're not stupid. They're not going to be easily fooled even if there is a team of lawyers arguing for something. Judges are overwhelmingly ex-lawyers which works very well because they know all the bullshit arguments they pull.

If a suppression order isn't appropriate then generally a judge will deny it or have it lifted quickly. That's exactly what has happened in this case.

If this was the case, the prosecution would have applied for the order to protect the victim.

However, the fact is the defendant applied and the reason given was to protect the reputational damage to the Silvagni family name.can’t be legally identified unless they waive their right to tha

If this was the case, the prosecution would have applied for the order to protect the victim.

However, the fact is the defendant applied and the reason given was to protect the reputational damage to the Silvagni family name.

Sex assault victims can’t be publicly named unless they agree to it or the court orders it.
Prosecution doesn’t need to apply for anything. It can, of course, argue the case if the court orders it against the victim’s will.

 

[revo333]

SOS showed no remorse or respect to the victim, neither has Tom. Yes I understand a father standing up for his son, but for now, Tom has been found guilty of rape. If it was my son, I'd be disgusted in him.

It's very difficult to get a rape trial to court let alone a guilty verdict. Generally, because there's not enough evidence. Hence why many women don't even report the crime.

Let's all take a minute to show some compassion for the victim.

Easy to say not in his shoes but if a son tells his father he is innocent of a crime I think most fathers would back that their son is telling the truth.

It doesn't mean though that you then go to the media and insinuate that the victim must be lying.

Absolute brainless from SOS.

 

[Kappa]

No as I have already replied to you before, open justice is about ensuing the PROCEEDINGS are open, so that regardless of whether the accused is found guilty or innocent, the process that led to the verdict is publicly scrutinised

And that is happening? We can all see the process after the verdict? What part of the trial or verdict is a secret?

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Jo Silvagni stares down her evil rapist son's victim

On Friday, Tom Silvagni, 23, watched from a prison video room as his victim bravely told him all the ways he had destroyed her life.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Kappa]

Where does this leave Silvangi in regards to a job inside the AFL?

He called a girl who just won a rape case a liar and has taken the side of a convicted rapist.

Yes it’s his son, but he still said those words.

Until the appeals are finished he could be telling the truth.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

View attachment 2495381

Jo Silvagni stares down her evil rapist son's victim

On Friday, Tom Silvagni, 23, watched from a prison video room as his victim bravely told him all the ways he had destroyed her life.

www.dailymail.co.uk

What's your point?

That it is a crime to look at someone?

 

[Corn Cobbers]

What's your point?

That it is a crime to look at someone?

It's more evidence

We're witnessing EVIL here

Unhinged gaslighting

 

[Munich]

What's your point?

That it is a crime to look at someone?

Yikes.

 

[Flash of power]

Unfortunately I have been in the victim’s situation. No one ever believes women when they’ve been r*ped! And… this is just another case of that playing out… sad

I am very very sorry you had that experience. I hope you have been able to find some peace.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Yikes.

Yikes indeed

 

[revo333]

Tom's mates have been very active on this thread today.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Look, it happened in the Silvagni family home. This young woman would be known to Steve and Jo. This brings an extra degree of angst. Their son says he is innocent. They have no choice but to believe him. Their son's girlfriend and best friend are sticking with him, and God knows what they have told their parents about her.

No doubt, they genuinely believe their son is innocent, and anything questionable he did in the aftermath, is easily explained away in a vacuum.

The only problem is their staunch defence of a loved one, hurts the victim more.

I suspect the girlfriend, best friend, and maybe the intrusive thoughts of his parents, have made them privately consider his guilt. When he goes away, the girlfriend will start considering it more and perhaps drift away.

The issue is that nobody was there except the perpetrator and the victim. Unless he confesses and tries to improve himself, his family and friends are always going to be in a prison with him, but not of their making.

The innocent don't fake evidence or tell the victim to move on.

This poor girl had to endure her freedom a d safety being taken away, and now endure this shitty society and their 'both sides' in every issue.

The thing that gets me is this is what happens when you do come forward, and this is the best it gets for the victim. If they wait, everyone wonders why they waited and suggests it must be revenge or money related.

I know lie detectors are inadmissible, but I'd love for more victims to take them, and for the public to put pressure on the accused to also take one.

Society really is ****ed.

 

[yaco55]

The girlfriend who was at the house and is still with him needs her head read.

I dont think you understand humans. You only have to look at the Epstein case where after his 2008 conviction, he was still on every A List for parties throughout the world. Human's dont worry about these type of things.

 

[H00t]

Easy to say not in his shoes but if a son tells his father he is innocent of a crime I think most fathers would back that their son is telling the truth.

It doesn't mean though that you then go to the media and insinuate that the victim must be lying.

Absolute brainless from SOS.

Kids telling their parents lies in order to not get in trouble is a tale as old as time.

Whether sos and Jo truly believe it or are just trying to protect Tom and/or their name is something we probably won’t ever know.

 

[H00t]

Look, it happened in the Silvagni family home. This young woman would be known to Steve and Jo. This brings an extra degree of angst. Their son says he is innocent. They have no choice but to believe him. Their son's girlfriend and best friend are sticking with him, and God knows what they have told their parents about her.

No doubt, they genuinely believe their son is innocent, and anything questionable he did in the aftermath, is easily explained away in a vacuum.

If Tom had said he didn’t eat the last piece of chocolate cake but he’s got it smeared all around his mouth would they also have to believe him then?

I really don’t understand this insistence that they have to defend him when all the evidence points to the contrary. Including a guilty verdict.

A big part of being a parent is correcting your child’s behaviour and letting them face the consequences of their actions. In this case the act is so heinous that jail time is the only fair consequence

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Given an "element of doubt" ... no matter how small .....

What % of people accused of a crime would lie to avoid jail time?

What % of people would tell the truth knowing they would go to jail?

What would you do?

 

[coryne]

View attachment 2495381

Jo Silvagni stares down her evil rapist son's victim

On Friday, Tom Silvagni, 23, watched from a prison video room as his victim bravely told him all the ways he had destroyed her life.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Disgusting behaviour if true and I'll lose ANY sympathy i had for Jo ....

 

[justlookingaround]

Disgusting behaviour if true and I'll lose ANY sympathy i had for Jo ....

I don’t take much out of it, Daily Mail always use superlative adjectives to try and outrage the reader.

The story really is that they entered the court room after the victim made her statement and JS looked at her. They used ‘glared’ instead of ‘looked at’ to elicit an emotional response in the reader.

The fact that they went in as soon as it was done, to the point where she was still at the podium really tells you everything you need to know about their level of respect for the victim though…..

 

[Hawk88]

Where does this leave Silvangi in regards to a job inside the AFL?

He called a girl who just won a rape case a liar and has taken the side of a convicted rapist.

Yes it’s his son, but he still said those words.

If he is convicted he has to shut up, if he said that whilst he was convicted its a different story imo

Put yourself in SOS shoes, what would you do? You protect your son at all costs

My son could kill someone and I would still be in his corner, rightly or wrongly