Opinion Hawthorn - Clarkson - Fagan Racism Investigation

[Sanders]

I'm not convinced "Amy" is getting terribly good advice.

It’s a bit weird, because her accusations about what happened to her former partner don’t seem to be being made by him (“Ian”). What does he say?

Her correspondence to Andrew Newbold shows she wasn’t treated with much respect, but she’s not really a direct party to whatever wrongdoing is being alleged. She was never employed by the AFL or Hawthorn, they don’t owe her a legal duty of care or other contractual rights implied or otherwise.

And this is just my opinion, but I think the AFL’s words inviting her (and I think it was directed at her) to take things up in another forum or legal avenue was a mixture of exasperation and challenge. That they have had enough of all these demands without contribution or participation.

So in short, I agree I don’t think she is being well advised.

One thing I don’t like is the AFL’s insistence they don’t know who she is, her correspondence with Newbold means they know exactly who she is.

 

[Sanders]

Depends what her end goal is. At the moment I think the legal advice has been terrible.

I think she’s been told that she is entitled to compensation, and expected the hush money to flow more easily.

Which was never possible once she went public, so her legal advice is very bad.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Step 1: make allegations
Step 2: accused disputes allegations and challenge to prove
Step 3: refuse to prove citing concerns process won’t be fair
Step 4: criticize complainant for not being prepared to substantiate claims
Step 5: criticism proves concerns in step 3


And here we are

 

[Sanders]

Step 1: make allegations
Step 2: accused disputes allegations and challenge to prove
Step 3: refuse to prove citing concerns process won’t be fair
Step 4: criticize complainant for not being prepared to substantiate claims
Step 5: criticism proves concerns in step 3


And here we are

There should be something about “my truth” in there somewhere

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

I get the feeling these lawyers would be the type to give Louise Milligan a standing ovation at her recent speech.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[1970crow]

Well, if your earlier post is accurate, then yes, this is true.

About having possibly overcooked her claim? If so, if preferred outcome is cash settlement, the only course of action is to continue the public pressure whilst avoiding the claims being tested. In that case, the lawyer has been dealt a pretty tough hand to play. The time for NDAs and cash settlements was between the report and the journo getting involved.

I’m not sure there’s another way to get paid other than maintaining public pressure whilst simultaneously avoiding being found out to have lied or having been lied to.

 

[Sanders]

About having possibly overcooked her claim? If so, if preferred outcome is cash settlement, the only course of action is to continue the public pressure whilst avoiding the claims being tested. In that case, the lawyer has been dealt a pretty tough hand to play. The time for NDAs and cash settlements was between the report and the journo getting involved.

I’m not sure there’s another way to get paid other than maintaining public pressure whilst simultaneously avoiding being found out to have lied or having been lied to.

She’s got no win no fee lawyers, you’d have to be pretty drunk to think the goal isn’t cash

 

[1970crow]

Depends what her end goal is. At the moment I think the legal advice has been terrible.

If she is telling the truth and her goal is to get Clarkson/Fagan sacked, then I agree. The best way to achieve that is to have her claims tested and ratified to a strong degree by the AFL investigation.

But if her version isn’t accurate, noting it’s mostly hearsay, an her goal is financial in nature, then there’s not really any other way to play it. You can’t engage with the investigation as that exposes the inaccuracies but you also need to maintain the public pressure and be seen as a beyond doubt victim.

The lawyers were engaged after this went public and the AFL became duty bound to investigate. The bad advice, in terms of easiest and best personal outcome for the complainants, was from the journo. Prior to that, a cash settlement bound by NDAs was all but a slam dunk.

 

[1970crow]

I think she’s been told that she is entitled to compensation, and expected the hush money to flow more easily.

Which was never possible once she went public, so her legal advice is very bad.

This is where I disagree. Legal advice, from recollection, was engaged after the allegations went public, which removed the quiet cash settlement from the table. They’re effectively playing poker with their cards on the table. I’m not convinced they have any other options than keeping their client’s version of events from being exposed whilst maintaining public pressure.

Edit - just look at how the hand wringers in here lapped up her refusal to participate.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Even if you knew nothing about this investigation or this story — not a single thing — you could almost guarantee the mob running that Twitter page gives terrible legal advice.

If you want to take anything to the bank, it’s that.

 

[1970crow]

She’s got no win no fee lawyers, you’d have to be pretty drunk to think the goal isn’t cash

I agree, but that doesn’t change the fact that coming in after this went public makes the hush money outcome near on impossible.

 

[Sanders]

Edit - just look at how the hand wringers in here lapped up her refusal to participate.

Yeah but those same people would advocate for Idi Amin if he came out and self identified as a disabled lesbian whale

 

[1970crow]

The most damning allegation is now hard to see how the investigation can find anything other than the abortion allegation is simply untrue if Amy isn't there to participate

Amy’s evidence on that is hearsay anyway, unless I’m mistaken. A very realistic version of events is where the player has used the coaches as an excuse to do what he actually wanted to do, but wasn’t able to. And Amy has been fed some untruths as to how and why certain things played out.

And for the hand wringers, I’m not saying it DID happen this way, I’m saying it is one way that it COULD have happened. Obviously the kidnapping and actively aborting the foetus in Clarko’s office is another way too.

 

[Scorpus]

If she is telling the truth and her goal is to get Clarkson/Fagan sacked, then I agree. The best way to achieve that is to have her claims tested and ratified to a strong degree by the AFL investigation.

But if her version isn’t accurate, noting it’s mostly hearsay, an her goal is financial in nature, then there’s not really any other way to play it. You can’t engage with the investigation as that exposes the inaccuracies but you also need to maintain the public pressure and be seen as a beyond doubt victim.

The lawyers were engaged after this went public and the AFL became duty bound to investigate. The bad advice, in terms of easiest and best personal outcome for the complainants, was from the journo. Prior to that, a cash settlement bound by NDAs was all but a slam dunk.

If she wants Clarkson sacked the AFL investigation is absolutely not the best way. Who knows what they will roll out to protect their own interests.

The best way is to have it play out as publicly as possible so that Clarkson's reputation is damaged and he's unemployable

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

If she wants Clarkson sacked the AFL investigation is absolutely not the best way. Who knows what they will roll out to protect their own interests.

The best way is to have it play out as publicly as possible so that Clarkson's reputation is damaged and he's unemployable

But that doesn’t work if Clarko says it’s not true and she’s not willing to substantiate anything.

 

[Scorpus]

But that doesn’t work if Clarko says it’s not true and she’s not willing to substantiate anything.

Clarko saying it's not true without any details does little for his reputation. His image has already been damaged but not to the point of sacking yet.

All she has to do is wait for the investigation to take place and ramp up or repeat any claims if they let him off. If she does that in public it will throw doubt on the investigation.

It may not actually work but what definitely won't work is cooperating with an AFL investigation that's goal is protecting their image

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Clarko saying it's not true without any details does little for his reputation. His image has already been damaged but not to the point of sacking yet.

All she has to do is wait for the investigation to take place and ramp up or repeat any claims if they let him off. If she does that in public it will throw doubt on the investigation.

It may not actually work but what definitely won't work is cooperating with an AFL investigation that's goal is protecting their image

“Amy’s” accusations aren’t in the Hawthorn report. If she won’t get involved in the AFL investigation, how can they investigate it.

I’m seeing public sympathy already move towards Clarko and Fagan. When this all dropped the consensus was they’d never work in AFL again.

Now they’re both back.

 

[Scorpus]

“Amy’s” accusations aren’t in the Hawthorn report. If she won’t get involved in the AFL investigation, how can they investigate it.

I’m seeing public sympathy already move towards Clarko and Fagan. When this all dropped the consensus was they’d never work in AFL again.

Now they’re both back.

I don't think she really cares whether the AFL investigate it or not. She's made statements effectively saying she doesn't believe the AFL will investigate it properly. There's virtually no incentive for her to participate unless she believes the investigation is conducted appropriately, which given the AFL is involved would be unlikely.

She wants public opinion to be on her side so action is taken to avoid brand damage.

For now it's all just in a holding pattern. I'd expect more to happen one way or another after the investigation is finished depending on what outcome is reached.

 

[1970crow]

If she wants Clarkson sacked the AFL investigation is absolutely not the best way. Who knows what they will roll out to protect their own interests.

The best way is to have it play out as publicly as possible so that Clarkson's reputation is damaged and he's unemployable

That’s not going to happen, he’s already back coaching. Her claims will continue to lack credibility, except in the minds of the deluded. For the AFL to put Clarko out of the hand they need the ammo from a proper investigation, untested accusations will never be enough.

 

[Scorpus]

That’s not going to happen, he’s already back coaching. Her claims will continue to lack credibility, except in the minds of the deluded. For the AFL to put Clarko out of the hand they need the ammo from a proper investigation, untested accusations will never be enough.

So far she's provided more specifics about the events than Clarko has, I don't see how her claims would be less credible at this point

I'm not suggesting the AFL will intervene. I think she was hoping public pressure would see the clubs themselves sack or refuse to hire him. Whether that will happen is another story

 

[1970crow]

“Amy’s” accusations aren’t in the Hawthorn report. If she won’t get involved in the AFL investigation, how can they investigate it.

I’m seeing public sympathy already move towards Clarko and Fagan. When this all dropped the consensus was they’d never work in AFL again.

Now they’re both back.

The hand wringers view was fixed 5 seconds after the story broke. Nothing can change their belief. Their understanding of fairness and justice is fundamentally nil. Fortunately they’re in the minority and wiser heads prevail.

If proven the coaches see screwed, the AFL would dearly love a sacrificial lamb or 2, but it’s looking more and more doubtful that the claims are valid or will even be able to be tested if they were.

 

[Ramify]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/hawthorn-accuser-announces-major-action-against-afl-investigation/news-story/a8953a97f219a1178936ffd68fbdc811?fbclid=IwAR0tPox5d78FAN8uZk6TQ3hYnnx0i6_1EujFxh_8f3GKabiyWv4E6GzLccg

Some interesting quotes:

From the AFL:

- Which is fair comment, I think. I mean, we might question how "independent" the investigation is, but the AFL can argue that it has to be done, to some extent, under their jurisdiction.

From Clarkson:


From "Amy"'s law firm:

Um sorry what? "You shouldn't be investigating whether the allegations are true, you should be assuming they are true and investigating how it happened on your watch".

Crazy isn't it?

More and more idiots think this is the way of the world every day.

 

[Ramify]

I think she’s been told that she is entitled to compensation, and expected the hush money to flow more easily.

Which was never possible once she went public, so her legal advice is very bad.

So what are the chances that the initial investigator has also played the role of advocate/puppet master in all this?


Or am I the only one who's had this thought, since he(Egan) went public?

 

[Mutineer]

So what are the chances that the initial investigator has also played the role of advocate/puppet master in all this?


Or am I the only one who's had this thought, since he(Egan) went public?

I think you're likely on the money here.

 

[1970crow]

So what are the chances that the initial investigator has also played the role of advocate/puppet master in all this?


Or am I the only one who's had this thought, since he(Egan) went public?

Going public was a bad move. Gut feel is that somewhere along the line the accusers were told that there’d be a result based solely on the allegations being made public. I’d be surprised if both Egan and the journo didn’t advance that belief. How would either of them have benefitted if there was a quiet settlement between the parties?