Scandal Tom Silvagni convicted of rape

[The Golden Glenferrie]

Bring back Darren Milburn

I always liked Darren. Should have hit him harder

 

[Neese]

That's not funny pricks

 

[The Golden Glenferrie]

That's not funny pricks

 

[JD1992]

I'm wondering with the Saints GM of footbal (https://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_...lvagni-jack-silvagni-tom-silvagni-lenny-hayes) offering public support for Jack and Stephen with out mentioning anything about the victims of crime - sounds extremely tone deaf.

He can do that internally but publiclly??? - bad look.

Also wonder what other Saints employees - male and female throughout the admin feel about this - without offering any condolences or anything to the victim?

 

[darklake]

I'm wondering with the Saints GM of footbal (https://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_...lvagni-jack-silvagni-tom-silvagni-lenny-hayes) offering public support for Jack and Stephen with out mentioning anything about the victims of crime - sounds extremely tone deaf.

He can do that internally but publiclly??? - bad look.

Also wonder what other Saints employees - male and female throughout the admin feel about this - without offering any condolences or anything to the victim?

It is St Kilda.
So....

 

[Mister Carlton]

Does he just create burner accounts?

Yeah, it's a terrible situation to be in as a family, but it definitely exposes people's true values.

 

[Mudman85]

I'm wondering with the Saints GM of footbal (https://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_...lvagni-jack-silvagni-tom-silvagni-lenny-hayes) offering public support for Jack and Stephen with out mentioning anything about the victims of crime - sounds extremely tone deaf.

He can do that internally but publiclly??? - bad look.

Also wonder what other Saints employees - male and female throughout the admin feel about this - without offering any condolences or anything to the victim?

I wonder why St Kilda chose to comment at all. Was there any speculation that they wouldn't support SOS and Jack? Neither of them had any involvement in it so why even mention it. Why wouldn't they back them ?

 

[BillytheLid]

I wonder why St Kilda chose to comment at all. Was there any speculation that they wouldn't support SOS and Jack? Neither of them had any involvement in it so why even mention it. Why wouldn't they back them ?

I think it was in answer to a direct question put to him about how JSOS was travelling.

On another note - why is there is even a thread about a suburban footballer who was never on an AFL list? Furthermore, what has his offending possibly got to do with Carlton or St. Kilda? He never played at either club, or any other AFL ciub for that matter.

 

[schmuttt]

That screenshot from Ben's insta confirms everything I thought about that family.

 

[Tigerat2020]

I wonder why St Kilda chose to comment at all. Was there any speculation that they wouldn't support SOS and Jack? Neither of them had any involvement in it so why even mention it. Why wouldn't they back them ?

Why wouldn't they back Stephen? Because he is calling a rape victim a liar, because they are a community organisation with a women's team.
I imagine some players are not happy he is still there, particularly those women players on the list.

 

[The Golden Glenferrie]

That screenshot from Ben's insta confirms everything I thought about that family.

Yep, Affluenza seems to be prevalent in the family

 

[Black Panther]

Grounds for appeal released ...

“The learned trial judge erred in determining that the statements made by (Silvagni) to the complainant during the pre-text call … (a) were capable of constituting evidence of incriminating conduct, (b) were reasonably capable of being viewed by the jury as evidence of incriminating conduct and (c) could be relied upon by the prosecution as evidence of incriminating conduct,” the first ground reads.

“The learned trial judge erred in his directions to the jury concerning (a) the permissible use to which the evidence relied upon as incriminating conduct might be put by the jury and (b) the limited circumstances in which the evidence relied upon as incriminating conduct might be used by the jury,” the second ground reads.

"grok translate this into plain english"

Here are the two appeal grounds translated into plain, everyday English:

The first ground of appeal says:The trial judge got it wrong when he ruled that the things Silvagni said to the complainant during the recorded pretext phone call could be treated as evidence of guilty behaviour. Specifically, he was wrong to decide that those statements (a) counted as evidence of guilt, (b) could reasonably be seen by the jury as evidence of guilt, and (c) could be used by the prosecution as evidence of guilt.

The second ground of appeal says:The trial judge gave the jury incorrect instructions about how they were allowed to use any evidence claimed to show guilty behaviour – in particular, (a) what they could properly use it for, and (b) the narrow situations in which they could use it at all.

 

[Tigerat2020]

Grounds for appeal released ...

“The learned trial judge erred in determining that the statements made by (Silvagni) to the complainant during the pre-text call … (a) were capable of constituting evidence of incriminating conduct, (b) were reasonably capable of being viewed by the jury as evidence of incriminating conduct and (c) could be relied upon by the prosecution as evidence of incriminating conduct,” the first ground reads.

“The learned trial judge erred in his directions to the jury concerning (a) the permissible use to which the evidence relied upon as incriminating conduct might be put by the jury and (b) the limited circumstances in which the evidence relied upon as incriminating conduct might be used by the jury,” the second ground reads.

"grok translate this into plain english"

Here are the two appeal grounds translated into plain, everyday English:

The first ground of appeal says:The trial judge got it wrong when he ruled that the things Silvagni said to the complainant during the recorded pretext phone call could be treated as evidence of guilty behaviour. Specifically, he was wrong to decide that those statements (a) counted as evidence of guilt, (b) could reasonably be seen by the jury as evidence of guilt, and (c) could be used by the prosecution as evidence of guilt.

The second ground of appeal says:The trial judge gave the jury incorrect instructions about how they were allowed to use any evidence claimed to show guilty behaviour – in particular, (a) what they could properly use it for, and (b) the narrow situations in which they could use it at all.

Clutching at straws there.

 

[StackedHunch]

That screenshot from Ben's insta confirms everything I thought about that family.

Funny thing is, he's posting as if he's achieved something massive with a local flag, and very defensive about it. Seems dumb as dogshit, too.

 

[Xtreme]

Funny thing is, he's posting as if he's achieved something massive with a local flag, and very defensive about it. Seems dumb as dogshit, too.

Even Warrick Capper had SOME self awareness!!

 

[Mudman85]

I think it was in answer to a direct question put to him about how JSOS was travelling.

On another note - why is there is even a thread about a suburban footballer who was never on an AFL list? Furthermore, what has his offending possibly got to do with Carlton or St. Kilda? He never played at either club, or any other AFL ciub for that matter.

Oh I 100% agree.

 

[windyhill]

That's not funny pricks

It’s not, it’s ****ing hilarious.

 

[10571z]

Grounds for appeal released ...

“The learned trial judge erred in determining that the statements made by (Silvagni) to the complainant during the pre-text call … (a) were capable of constituting evidence of incriminating conduct, (b) were reasonably capable of being viewed by the jury as evidence of incriminating conduct and (c) could be relied upon by the prosecution as evidence of incriminating conduct,” the first ground reads.

“The learned trial judge erred in his directions to the jury concerning (a) the permissible use to which the evidence relied upon as incriminating conduct might be put by the jury and (b) the limited circumstances in which the evidence relied upon as incriminating conduct might be used by the jury,” the second ground reads.

"grok translate this into plain english"

Here are the two appeal grounds translated into plain, everyday English:

The first ground of appeal says:The trial judge got it wrong when he ruled that the things Silvagni said to the complainant during the recorded pretext phone call could be treated as evidence of guilty behaviour. Specifically, he was wrong to decide that those statements (a) counted as evidence of guilt, (b) could reasonably be seen by the jury as evidence of guilt, and (c) could be used by the prosecution as evidence of guilt.

The second ground of appeal says:The trial judge gave the jury incorrect instructions about how they were allowed to use any evidence claimed to show guilty behaviour – in particular, (a) what they could properly use it for, and (b) the narrow situations in which they could use it at all.

My gosh the desperation is insane.

I cannot fathom how much this is costing the family.

The entire defence has been botched from the start. His lawyers had no explanation for the fake uber receipts which is possibly the most compelling (non forensic) evidence I’ve seen in a rape case.

There is no logical explanation for it if she made the entire thing up.

 

[Retzlaff]

just saw a random blonde haired woman doing a chemist
warehouse ad

Jo has not been accused of anything

It's up to us to boycott chemist warehouse and somebody
with internet knowledge to start a "bring back jo" movement

They’re just using the cheaper generic brand

 

[phantom13]

Can’t get worse than it already is. He got the average for first offence rape, throwing a Hail Mary to get off altogether. Nothing like what you’re referring to.

Sentence wise no but court of public opinion can get worse, so can the bank account.

If he’s unsuccessful (which from what WE know is very likely) the family will be worse off by just about every metric

 

[phantom13]

Grounds for appeal released ...

“The learned trial judge erred in determining that the statements made by (Silvagni) to the complainant during the pre-text call … (a) were capable of constituting evidence of incriminating conduct, (b) were reasonably capable of being viewed by the jury as evidence of incriminating conduct and (c) could be relied upon by the prosecution as evidence of incriminating conduct,” the first ground reads.

“The learned trial judge erred in his directions to the jury concerning (a) the permissible use to which the evidence relied upon as incriminating conduct might be put by the jury and (b) the limited circumstances in which the evidence relied upon as incriminating conduct might be used by the jury,” the second ground reads.

"grok translate this into plain english"

Here are the two appeal grounds translated into plain, everyday English:

The first ground of appeal says:The trial judge got it wrong when he ruled that the things Silvagni said to the complainant during the recorded pretext phone call could be treated as evidence of guilty behaviour. Specifically, he was wrong to decide that those statements (a) counted as evidence of guilt, (b) could reasonably be seen by the jury as evidence of guilt, and (c) could be used by the prosecution as evidence of guilt.

The second ground of appeal says:The trial judge gave the jury incorrect instructions about how they were allowed to use any evidence claimed to show guilty behaviour – in particular, (a) what they could properly use it for, and (b) the narrow situations in which they could use it at all.

Not a lawyer but that sounds like a ****ing stretch

 

[Rocky Stevo]

Agree with 10571z on how ridiculous this appeal looks.

They say the judge shouldn't have told the jury that the recorded phone call was admissible.
Is this the barrister being a snake oil salesman and sucking more money from desperate parents.
You'd think extended family would say 'come on, give it up, it's insane'

It's legal to record a phone call as long as one person consents.
It's sort of entrapment, but it's like in the US where cops leave a bait car in a car theft hotspot and when car gets pinched, the cops disable it remotely and nab the crooks

 

[Neese]

Clutching at straws there Tom

 

[StackedHunch]

I think it was in answer to a direct question put to him about how JSOS was travelling.

On another note - why is there is even a thread about a suburban footballer who was never on an AFL list? Furthermore, what has his offending possibly got to do with Carlton or St. Kilda? He never played at either club, or any other AFL ciub for that matter.

They were backing him. He just turned out to be shit.

 

[gordo2016]

Judges: "What are the grounds for this appeal? "
Defense: " Um,um, its the vibe, your honour. "