Remove this Banner Ad

Vic Daniel Andrews and the Statue of Limitations

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

You can find an "expert" (for the right price) that will say anything you want. That the report was submitted as evidence tells you nothing about its veracity.
This isn't the USA! The author of the report was a decorated retired former Assistant Commissioner for Traffic and Operations with VicPol who received an AO. You don't get AO's if you are undeserving do you? Oh wait...

With the benefit of hindsight, Dr Shuey's beef with Andrews was that he used VicPol to not just avoid police scrutiny over the accident but to shift blame. Andrews' then chief of staff was all over it like a rash, and in 2019 Dan rewarded the former policeman by appointing him as an assistant commissioner of VicPol, a move described at the time by The Age because it made a mockery of a fundamental principle being that the association between police and government should never be politicised
 
Last edited:
This isn't the USA! The author of the report was a decorated retired former Assistant Commissioner for Traffic and Operations with VicPol who received an AO. You don't get AO's if you are undeserving do you? Oh wait...
You would be very nieve to think it doesn't happen here.

You're going to go with the expert that best supports your case.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

This isn't the USA! The author of the report was a decorated retired former Assistant Commissioner for Traffic and Operations with VicPol who received an AO. You don't get AO's if you are undeserving do you? Oh wait...

Dr Shuey's beef with Andrews was that he used VicPol to not just avoid police scrutiny over the accident but to shift blame. Andrews' then chief of staff was all over it like a rash, and in 2019 Dan rewarded the former policeman by appointing him as an assistant commissioner of VicPol, a move described at the time by The Age because it made a mockery of a fundamental principle being that the association between police and government should never be politicised
An AO for a retired senior public servant is the modern equivalent of a gold watch.
 
You would be very nieve to think it doesn't happen here.

You're going to go with the expert that best supports your case.
Perhaps. Why am I surprised you defend Andrews like he is a saint? There are simply way too many discrepancies in this case for it not to warrant further investigation. For example:

  • why did the traffic incident system report submitted by police record the driver of the car as Catherine Kesik? Her married name is Andrews and all other documentation on the accident had it down as Andrews.
  • why was the police officer sent to the accident scene pulled off it by an officer in Rye who was nowhere near the scene?
  • why wasn't Dan or his wife breathalysed? To say. "he didn't wreak of alcohol" does not pass the pub test! This was a serious MVA and the driver was not breath tested.
  • why was Dan allowed to drive an unroadworthy car home from the accident scene?
  • why did Police not take measurements and assess the accident scene given the initial reports was of a near fatality?
  • why were no witnesses or neighbours interviewed? Remember a witness claims she saw Mrs Andrews in the passenger seat immediately after the collision.
  • why did Police delete key evidentiary documents from the file handed to Slater & Gordon for the TAC claim?
  • why did Police ignore witness evidence that tyre screeching was heard moments before impact and accept Dan's statement that he was completely stationery when the bicycle
T-boned" his car?

This case simply highlighted the lengths Dan was prepared to go to protect his brand and subvert justice. Blame the kid on the bike. Let his wife carry the can as driver and let Police deliberately "botch" an investigation...
 
Last edited:
Perhaps. Why am I surprised you defend Andrews like he is a saint?
I'm not defending him at all. I'm pointing out that in legal cases it's common to get experts to back up your narrative and make the other side look bad. You'll find the other side will do similar. In the end both sides will cross examine and the truth will come out in the wash.
There are simply way too many discrepancies in this case for it not to warrant further investigation. For example:
It's been investigated. How much more do you want? A Royal Commission?
The police were investigated by IBAC in 2017 and were cleared of wrongdoing. The officers who didn't breath test against protocol were given a warning.

The problem with people like you Sttew you have such a blind hatred of Andrews it's clouding your judgement and thinking skills. You clearly can't see fact through fiction. You clearly aren't able read beyond the headlines.


You like so many who hate him are hoping this is the smoking gun that will finally punish him.

I suspect you would believe anything negative about Andrews because you hope it will be thing that punishes him.
 
You like so many who hate him are hoping this is the smoking gun that will finally punish him.

I suspect you would believe anything negative about Andrews because you hope it will be thing that punishes him.
If only, but it won't and never will. I know that. I genuinely hope the kid (who is now an adult) get's his just desserts, but sadly, I suspect the 'Machine' will work against him.

Answer me this question - why do you think it is that Andrews is/was such a divisive figure? Moreso than Morrison, or any other politician that I can remember. Maybe its because he has NEVER faced the music for any of his alleged wrongdoings, starting with the Hotel Quarantine Security debacle.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Vic Daniel Andrews and the Statue of Limitations

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top