Damage control: Yet another St.Kilda scandal Part 3

[saintsrule]

Someone earlier suggested histrionic personality disorder. Pretty spot on, among her other behavioral disorders. Surely she must have a full psychiatric assessment, given the bizarre nature of her actions this year.

 

[ruscy002]

there's also a chance that he emailed, texted, blutoothed them to her, or this alleged friend did whom he states was there with her using his computer.

certainly the Judge hasn't been persuaded that anything was 'stolen' to issue an order for the destruction of what is in her possession.

Valid points all round. Having said that, I'd still rather be in St Kilda's corner...

 

[CHBench]

Sorry, wasn't having a go at you MacMum. More the ones who seem to need to believe that the Saints players are lying on principle. They're all over Twitter.

Let's not forget her initial claims that everyone seems to have forgotten;

She said the photo of Riewoldt was taken in Melbourne "at a certain player’s house

Can't believe no interview has questioned her change of story.

 

[Subprime]

that will be largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as far as the action from him is concerned.

Riewoldt would have a different cause of action and same goes for Dal Santo, altho' unclear because the photos might not be from the same time and place.

Well there's only 2 versions of events on the table

1) the girl took the photos etc
2) Gilbert took the photos etc

 

[iDon]

interesting reading one of Andrew Lovetts status on the matter. anyone else seen that floating around?

 

[aneale]

If that's the case, it still gives her no right to publicly display and defame anyone. If she claims to be mistreated, why doesn't she state what mistreatment she has receieved.

Gilbert's claim is for Intellectual Property damage, so he's claiming copyright infringement essentially as he is the author of the work. If she took them, then she's the author and holder of the copyright and some might say has every right to put it on facebook.

If they were provided to her rather than 'stolen' then the context may change again.

Facebook's position won't change either, that they are a social media platform and it's not 'publication', and given he's got more money than the AFL and all the Clubs combined they might not want to tilt at that windmill.

Very murky legal minefield to be walking through given technology changes so quickly that framers of legislation can't keep up with the changing times.

 

[Hollow Knight]

She may have had some chance at building a modicum of sympathy if she actually expressed how she has been wronged.

Merely stating "I'm doing revenge" over and over doesn't really make her appear rational. Revenge for what?

What, exactly, does she think she is owed? Is she just upset that the Saints players she hooked up with don't share her obsessive love and don't want to committ to her for all time?

 

[Subprime]

Gilbert's claim is for Intellectual Property damage, so he's claiming copyright infringement essentially as he is the author of the work. If she took them, then she's the author and holder of the copyright and some might say has every right to put it on facebook.

If they were provided to her rather than 'stolen' then the context may change again.

Facebook's position won't change either, that they are a social media platform and it's not 'publication', and given he's got more money than the AFL and all the Clubs combined they might not want to tilt at that windmill.

Very murky legal minefield to be walking through given technology changes so quickly that framers of legislation can't keep up with the changing times.

Who involved can credibly claim that at this point?

 

[Big Rough]

The damage has been done and the horse bolted once the photos were posted, the players will forever be the subject of taunts. Money wont change that.

A plie of money makes Riewoldt and St Kilda look bad. I am not on her side, far from it. Just think the club and AFL are making it a bigger story, and giving her a bigger stage than what it deserves. And she is milking it. I honestly think she has posted the only pics she has and the rest is bs to keep her 15 minutes of fame. The journos are going along with the line of she has more, as it sells papers. We wont be seeing anymore pictures from her. She was begging on Twitter for more pics.

You silence her in the courts and she will be made into a pariah. Come out and be honest about the whole thing and it reverts to a nothing story. That is of course if there is nothing to hide, legal wise.

You can argue the court action may make another person think again when considering doing the same thing. But then again more than one person has been convicted of murder/rape/arson/theft in the history of the courts. Deterrants only stop reasonably minded people, they dont stop those who aren't.

Well then you can apply this logic to almost any case for compensation then that doesn't directly involve money. I agree with most of what you've said here, and I agree that deterrants don't necessarily stop the people who are clearly sick. However, if she gets away with this scott free then this behaviour is indirectly encouraged. Slightly concerning if you ask me.

 

[Benatration]

Apartently she is going to release her password to the media.......

 

[mickctiger]

She's been caught out telling the mother of all porkies though. There may still be repercussions for Gilbert but she will be completely discredited.

and that is??
apart from allegedly lying about who took who's photo, what other lies has she allegedly made ?
I'm pretty sure that her claims of pregnancy aren't lies. That fact was accepted by the court hearing the case of the policeman that took advantage of her

 

[aneale]

Well there's only 2 versions of events on the table

1) the girl took the photos etc
2) Gilbert took the photos etc

Gilbert's case is about IP, and thats the only thing lodged as far as I have read. They claims theft, that will need to be proven, not whether or not she took them, if she did that shoots down any potential claim otherwise but you can prove that she didn't steal them even if she wasn't the photographer.

 

[SCARD]

The media and other "headline grabbers" such as the women from the Womens Trust of Victoria are trying to paint her as some kind of sympathetic person in all of this. Well, they got the "pathetic" part of it right.

Even today as she arrived at the airport for her "press conference", she continued to run with her story that she took the photo in melbourne, which has been proven to be absolutely false. Yet she seems to think otherwise.

She is living in a fantasy world and when reality has interrupted her little fairytale, she is now starting to realise that there are real consequences to her actions and she is trying to maintain some sense of control over her story which is crumbling around her.

When she finally ends up in court, and she will, expect to see the waterworks come out and all the apologies in the world and it will be too little too late.

Reading comments like this make me realize why I despise everything to do with StKilda,

 

[aneale]

Who involved can credibly claim that at this point?

well apparently Gilbert's affidavit alludes to a second person there, a friend of hers. If he is claiming he doesn't know what one person was up to its hard pressed to know what the other was up to.

They took out the action, they used the word stolen, they'll have to prove it beyond a reasonable degree of doubt, something that hasn't occurred as yet and could be really hard to prove.

How do you prove to Telstra that you didn't send those texts at 3.21pm, 3.25pm and 4.17pm but your little sister did without permission and therefore you don't want to pay for them? That's how tricky that could be.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Just read she claims she has photos of Adelaide based players.... what next, West Sydney players

 

[Hollow Knight]

well apparently Gilbert's affidavit alludes to a second person there, a friend of hers. If he is claiming he doesn't know what one person was up to its hard pressed to know what the other was up to.

They took out the action, they used the word stolen, they'll have to prove it beyond a reasonable degree of doubt, something that hasn't occurred as yet and could be really hard to prove.

How do you prove to Telstra that you didn't send those texts at 3.21pm, 3.25pm and 4.17pm but your little sister did without permission and therefore you don't want to pay for them? That's how tricky that could be.

I'm thinking back 10+ years to grade 12 legal studies so correct me if I'm wrong, but don't civil trials rely on a "balance of probabilites" scale rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"?

In other words, don't the Saints legal team only have to make the case that it is more likely than unlikely that she stole the photos?

 

[rufus t firefly]

and that is??
apart from allegedly lying about who took who's photo, what other lies has she allegedly made ?
I'm pretty sure that her claims of pregnancy aren't lies. That fact was accepted by the court hearing the case of the policeman that took advantage of her

She admitted to the police that she lied about meting the players at a footy clinic - she met them in a nightclub.

She lied about her age to get into the nightclub.

She lied about taking the photos.

She has lied every day since about having more photos.

 

[zero]

there's been porkies from both sides in this

has there?

she is carrying on like she is making it up as she goes along, she has changed her story a bunch of times, sometimes in the same interview, and a bunch of stuff she has claimed looks to be false.

im perfectly willing to accept that the saints, or the AFL, or nixon, or reiwoltd, or gilbert, or dal santo, have lied, but unless any evidence of contradiction turns up they get the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

it seems to be they have all been honest so far. thats what you get when you have professional media and legal advice.

nope, the wrongdoing on that side can pretty much be inferred by the silence... gilbert released a short printed statement, and dal santo has been dead silent.

what evidence is there to suggest that anyone on that side has lied?

 

[-CG-]

She admitted to the police that she lied about meting the players at a footy clinic - she met them in a nightclub.

She said on 5AA earlier this week that she has never seen an AFL player in a nightclub too

 

[Poached_Egg]

Just read she claims she has photos of Adelaide based players.... what next, West Sydney players

On Adelaide Radio she said neither SA team was involved. I heard her say it. Unless of course her plea on Twitter netted her a few shots.

Leads me to believe the only photos she had from the start are the ones she has posted. Had the AFL/St Kilda handled this better it would all be over by now. She would be as famous as thay Facebook party guy was a few years back.

 

[aneale]

I'm thinking back 10+ years to grade 12 legal studies so correct me if I'm wrong, but don't civil trials rely on a "balance of probabilites" scale rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"?

In other words, don't the Saints legal team only have to make the case that it is more likely than unlikely that she stole the photos?

burden of proof is very different, enough to get the court order originally not enough to get everything they wanted yesterday without her side of the story. But you don't really know what the Judge will want as part of their considerations.

you'd want more than 'look she used my email account at this time to email the pics to herself' given that if you were home at the time its a bit hard to prove who sent an email for example. There might end up being more looked at than just the normal, especially given the follow ramifications of further legal action of it all.

 

[-CG-]

interesting reading one of Andrew Lovetts status on the matter. anyone else seen that floating around?

No what did he say?

 

[Subprime]

well apparently Gilbert's affidavit alludes to a second person there, a friend of hers. If he is claiming he doesn't know what one person was up to its hard pressed to know what the other was up to.

They took out the action, they used the word stolen, they'll have to prove it beyond a reasonable degree of doubt, something that hasn't occurred as yet and could be really hard to prove.

How do you prove to Telstra that you didn't send those texts at 3.21pm, 3.25pm and 4.17pm but your little sister did without permission and therefore you don't want to pay for them? That's how tricky that could be.

She either took the picture or she didn't.

If its shown to be a Miami hotel room in the photo then I think the man on the Clapham omnibus may question her credibility.

 

[Matt72]

has there?

she is carrying on like she is making it up as she goes along, she has changed her story a bunch of times, sometimes in the same interview, and a bunch of stuff she has claimed looks to be false.

im perfectly willing to accept that the saints, or the AFL, or nixon, or reiwoltd, or gilbert, or dal santo, have lied, but unless any evidence of contradiction turns up they get the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

it seems to be they have all been honest so far. thats what you get when you have professional media and legal advice.

nope, the wrongdoing on that side can pretty much be inferred by the silence... gilbert released a short printed statement, and dal santo has been dead silent.

what evidence is there to suggest that anyone on that side has lied?

Riewoldt said that he didn't pose for the photo. That has been the most obvious lie by the Saints so far.

 

[damochandler]

she knows she doesn't have any photos. shes just playing the media and trying to get them to pay up. it's been that all along