Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
It's quite extraordinary isn't it.So you can use the son of a famous football family defence for behaving badly and it works.
As we all predicted.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
And with the number 1 pick in the Corrections Victoria draft, the Barwon Maniacs select Tom Silvagni.
I think the 'it wasn't me' defence is fine if it wasn't you.I believe it was what is known in legal circles as the "Shaggy defence".
View attachment 2497541
I think the 'it wasn't me' defence is fine if it wasn't you.
But surely if you're going with that defence, you've got to support it somehow? You've got to provide some sort of viable alternative?
Other than 'she was mistaken'.
But once his mate wouldn't comply, he had to offer the court something more?He tried to pot his best mate for it.
Then when that didn't work it was the she's lying rhetoric.
You would think that when it does come to his parole hearing that he will need to finally admit his wrong doing for them to even consider releasing him.
But once his mate wouldn't comply, he had to offer the court something more?
To be honest though, maybe he did and I just haven't read it anywhere.
It would have been more believable if he said she's nuts and made the whole thing up. Particularly since his girlfriend is obviously willing to lie for him and could have backed him up. Might have given them a shot at reasonable doubt. He said, she said.But once his mate wouldn't comply, he had to offer the court something more?
To be honest though, maybe he did and I just haven't read it anywhere.
Their defence was "we are the Silvagnis", that's it pretty muchBut once his mate wouldn't comply, he had to offer the court something more?
To be honest though, maybe he did and I just haven't read it anywhere.
That's what many rapists say & how they avoid a conviction. Sadly.It would have been more believable if he said she's nuts and made the whole thing up. Particularly since his girlfriend is obviously willing to lie for him and could have backed him up. Might have given them a shot at reasonable doubt. He said, she said.
Saying it was somebody else, who could easily contradict that story, and would have reason to feel aggrieved was just the worst idea.
Ridiculous isn't it! I can't recall ever panicking and forging Uber receipts for my friend who just left my house.I think their explanation and justification was that he 'panicked'.
I still don't know what the Defence's actual defence was? Is he saying that the entire episode never occurred at all? Or that it just wasn't him that did it, and it was his mate that's bullshitting?
The problem is there have been innocent blokes falsely accused in the past so people are naturally skeptical in most cases now. It often comes down to he says/she says and luckily this time the text messages and attempt to hide evidence were damningThat's what most rapists say & how they avoid a conviction. Sadly.
Was more important to Jo and Stephen to deny the charges even if it meant a longer sentence.I dont think it helped him that he showed absolutely no remorse and just went the deny deny deny route. I'm not sure what legal advice they got but the approach the family took definately backfired.
Its obviously a tough position to be in, and nobody wants their kid to go to jail, but I think you need to aknowledge when you're snookered and minimise the damage. Not helping Tom by supporting the ridiculous route he went down as far as defence.
If he pleads guilty I doubt he gets more then 3 years with 18 months non parole.
He'd for sure have been given some degree of leniency but undoubtedly would've served a few years anywho.So if he owned it, was remorseful the whole time and admitted it, what would have happened?
He'd for sure have been given some degree of leniency but undoubtedly would've served a few years anywho.
Understating the crime by calling it "sticky fingers" is actually ****ed
3 year non parole is a significant sentence all things considered. Even more than LukeParkerno1 expected, and he was a far better judge than I was in this instance.
I actually forgot it was two counts so should have just stayed silent to be honest.
But in reality this is a serious sentence with all the usual sentencing considerations in his favour (although genuine remorse is a big omission).