Rumour Rumors of cat player in big trouble

[Big_Birdy]

Incide

Why would they - are you a judge? From https://www.alcoholhelp.com/alcohol/blacking-out/. From "Depending on how much alcohol the person drank and how impaired other brain functions are, a person in the midst of a blackout could appear incredibly drunk – or barely intoxicated at all."

And you're also introducing a lot of Ifs - if there are no witness statements, if there is no medical reports, If there is no corroborating evidence.

Do you still support that the assertion that if a person cannot remember giving consent that they MUST have not given consent regardless of anything else? That is the only thing I am challenging.

The very scenario discussed on which you quoted me was that the person was so drunk they couldn't remember. Like I said, it isn't the lack of memory that vitiates the capacity to consent. It is the intoxication. So the only thing you are challenging is an argument I never made.

I also haven't introduced any of those ifs you refer to. You have. It is fairly obvious that the trier of fact needs to believe a fact is the truth. I was just showing how in the scenario being discussed, where the person was black out drunk, certain assumptions will be held when that has been established. The defence will then try to establish that regardless the victim was acting normally. Probably a tough gig but not the incorrect strategy.

Thinking about section 36A in more depth after you have brought it up (correctly), it really in essence acts a defence even if it is an element of the offence itself. In reality for a scenario like this, the accused would need to convince the bench or jury belief in consent was reasonable.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

You do realise that if she was "really drunk" so drunk she can't remember it, she would be incapable of giving consent?

Maybe they were really drunk and she took advantage to get money out of them for sex.

 

[takethepowerback]

Maybe they were really drunk and she took advantage to get money out of them for sex.

Yeah right, and maybe I'll fly to the moon tomorrow. What's the point of coming up with complete random speculation. There is no evidence of that whatsoever.

The reason intoxication was mentioned was because a witness had directly mentioned that the (alleged) victim was too drunk to drive.

 

[Soggy2112]

Do you still support that the assertion that if a person cannot remember giving consent that they MUST have not given consent regardless of anything else? That is the only thing I am challenging.

I think you’re missing the point. If a person is so drunk that they do not remember what happened the next day, then it is reasonable to assume that they were too intoxicated to give consent, therefore there was not actually consent, regardless if they said yes or not.

It’s a bit like if a person is under the age of consent, they might say yes, but that is irrelevant, because they are not considered old enough to be able to provide consent in the first place.

Now, from a legal perspective, it is incredibly grey, and it gets extra murky when both parties are drunk.

As a general rule, if you think someone is drunker then you are, and you try to have sex with them, you probably don’t have consent, and at the very least, you’re taking advantage of that person, and it’s a shitty thing to do.

I think this is one of those cases that shows how poor a lot of people’s understanding of consent actually is. As is said, just because someone says yes, does not mean they are providing consent.

 

[callmeX]

I think you’re missing the point. If a person is so drunk that they do not remember what happened the next day, then it is reasonable to assume that they were too intoxicated to give consent, therefore there was not actually consent, regardless if they said yes or not.

It’s a bit like if a person is under the age of consent, they might say yes, but that is irrelevant, because they are not considered old enough to be able to provide consent in the first place.

Now, from a legal perspective, it is incredibly grey, and it gets extra murky when both parties are drunk.

As a general rule, if you think someone is drunker then you are, and you try to have sex with them, you probably don’t have consent, and at the very least, you’re taking advantage of that person, and it’s a shitty thing to do.

I think this is one of those cases that shows how poor a lot of people’s understanding of consent actually is. As is said, just because someone says yes, does not mean they are providing consent.

Too drunk to give consent
But ok to negotiate a price and then ask for more
Too drunk to give consent
But ok to drive

 

[Chief]

Too drunk to give consent
But ok to negotiate a price and then ask for more
Too drunk to give consent
But ok to drive

Maybe too drunk for all of that.

 

[McKuursma]

"Most expensive lawyer in Victoria"

 

[Soggy2112]

Too drunk to give consent
But ok to negotiate a price and then ask for more
Too drunk to give consent
But ok to drive

Consent must be informed. A person who is highly intoxicated is not able to make informed choices.

It is irrelevant what other actions that person chooses to take.

I understand that this issue is not black and white as it would be ridiculous to say that as soon as you’ve had a few drinks you can’t have sex. However, there is clearly a point where a person becomes too intoxicated to give consent, and that even if they say yes, consent is not actually present. I’d say that if someone does not remember what happened the next morning then there’s a fair chance they were nearing or at that point.

 

[foxdog50]

So is it official yet that the charges have actually been dropped yet?

 

[cats_09]

So is it official yet that the charges have actually been dropped yet?

Was due to return to court this month for the resumption of the committal hearing - I'd guess that's when we'll get the next update

 

[foxdog50]

Was due to return to court this month for the resumption of the committal hearing - I'd guess that's when we'll get the next update

Much appreciate the reply

 

[Satan]

Geelong midfielder Tanner Bruhn can finally be revealed as the player who spent the 2025 season fighting a rape charge, as the case against him was officially dropped on Tuesday.

A suppression order has prevented the naming of Bruhn, 23, since he was charged earlier this year with raping an intoxicated woman he met outside a strip club.

bf always first with the news

The dramatic moment that sank the rape case against Geelong midfielder Tanner Bruhn

Bruhn’s lawyer said the footy star had been “to hell and back” fighting allegations that jeopardised his career and liberty.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Black Panther]

How is his finger?

 

[fpm84]

What an absolute mess. No justice for the alleged victim if she was indeed assaulted, and Bruhn has lost a year of his career and had his reputation tarnished. No winners at all.

---


The prosecution’s case fell apart after key witness Harrison Martin, who was at the club with the complainant on the night, took to the stand and cracked while being questioned under oath last month.

Mr Martin had testified for more than two hours about what he said happened that night, including exchanges with the accused men, and his concerns for the complainant’s safety.

“I am not lying,” he answered when Mr Sinnott’s barrister Moya O’Brien said the evidence, including CCTV outside the club and his Triple 0 call recording, doesn’t match his version of events.

“I am giving you an opportunity to not commit perjury,” Ms O’Brien then told him.

Mr Martin repeated: “I am not lying.”

It was soon after this exchange that the witness told magistrate Kimberley Swadesir he suffered from “FND” – a functional neurological disorder – and needed to get some fresh air.

The case was stood down, but Mr Martin did not return until the next morning, after claiming he wanted to get legal advice.

The next day, in a surprising turn of events, Mr Martin admitted he lied and announced he needed to redact swathes of his police statement because it was either lies or misleading.

The court heard when he left the witness box a day earlier, a police officer involved in the case followed him outside to make sure he was feeling OK.

During that conversation, Mr Martin confessed he had lied.

“I am sorry. I lied in my police statement. Am I going to get in trouble?” the officer’s notes from the conversation, which were read out in court and Mr Martin agreed were accurate, said.

Under cross examination by top criminal barrister Hayden Rattray, for Bruhn, Mr Martin then admitted he had little memory of the night and that his police statement was mostly just stating things the complainant had told him.

His bombshell evidence included him admitting the complainant had tried to show him her police statement; and told him she had lied to police even before he gave his police statement.

“(She) told you previously that she lied to the police about the rape allegations?” Mr Rattray asked.

Mr Martin replied: “From my memory, yes’.”

The witness said the complainant wanted him to make a statement that supported hers.

“It wasn’t a direct, ‘you must say this in your statement’, it was, ‘you don’t remember what happened, so here’s what happened’,” he said.

But Mr Martin acknowledged that he now knew parts of it, including how she had told him one of the men had assaulted him outside the club, were “utterly false”.

He told the court he had “no memory of the accused really even being there”.

 

[Satan]

How is his finger?

Geelong listed Bruhn as having sustained a finger injury in February, and he missed the entire season. He remains contracted until the end of 2027.

 

[Satan]

What an absolute mess. No justice for the alleged victim if she was indeed assaulted, and Bruhn has lost a year of his career and had his reputation tarnished. No winners at all.

---


The prosecution’s case fell apart after key witness Harrison Martin, who was at the club with the complainant on the night, took to the stand and cracked while being questioned under oath last month.

Mr Martin had testified for more than two hours about what he said happened that night, including exchanges with the accused men, and his concerns for the complainant’s safety.

“I am not lying,” he answered when Mr Sinnott’s barrister Moya O’Brien said the evidence, including CCTV outside the club and his Triple 0 call recording, doesn’t match his version of events.

“I am giving you an opportunity to not commit perjury,” Ms O’Brien then told him.

Mr Martin repeated: “I am not lying.”

It was soon after this exchange that the witness told magistrate Kimberley Swadesir he suffered from “FND” – a functional neurological disorder – and needed to get some fresh air.

The case was stood down, but Mr Martin did not return until the next morning, after claiming he wanted to get legal advice.

The next day, in a surprising turn of events, Mr Martin admitted he lied and announced he needed to redact swathes of his police statement because it was either lies or misleading.

The court heard when he left the witness box a day earlier, a police officer involved in the case followed him outside to make sure he was feeling OK.

During that conversation, Mr Martin confessed he had lied.

“I am sorry. I lied in my police statement. Am I going to get in trouble?” the officer’s notes from the conversation, which were read out in court and Mr Martin agreed were accurate, said.

Under cross examination by top criminal barrister Hayden Rattray, for Bruhn, Mr Martin then admitted he had little memory of the night and that his police statement was mostly just stating things the complainant had told him.

His bombshell evidence included him admitting the complainant had tried to show him her police statement; and told him she had lied to police even before he gave his police statement.

“(She) told you previously that she lied to the police about the rape allegations?” Mr Rattray asked.

Mr Martin replied: “From my memory, yes’.”

The witness said the complainant wanted him to make a statement that supported hers.

“It wasn’t a direct, ‘you must say this in your statement’, it was, ‘you don’t remember what happened, so here’s what happened’,” he said.

But Mr Martin acknowledged that he now knew parts of it, including how she had told him one of the men had assaulted him outside the club, were “utterly false”.

He told the court he had “no memory of the accused really even being there”.

1841 bf posts

 

[Schmuck]

A lot of people with egg on their face in this thread now…

 

[Carnthefkntigs]

Imagine your afl career being derailed because of a false sa accusation

 

[STPer18]

The prosecution’s case fell apart after key witness Harrison Martin, who was at the club with the complainant on the night, took to the stand and cracked while being questioned under oath last month.

Mr Martin had testified for more than two hours about what he said happened that night, including exchanges with the accused men, and his concerns for the complainant’s safety.

“I am not lying,” he answered when Mr Sinnott’s barrister Moya O’Brien said the evidence, including CCTV outside the club and his Triple 0 call recording, doesn’t match his version of events.

“I am giving you an opportunity to not commit perjury,” Ms O’Brien then told him.

Mr Martin repeated: “I am not lying.”

It was soon after this exchange that the witness told magistrate Kimberley Swadesir he suffered from “FND” – a functional neurological disorder – and needed to get some fresh air.

The case was stood down, but Mr Martin did not return until the next morning, after claiming he wanted to get legal advice.

The next day, in a surprising turn of events, Mr Martin admitted he lied and announced he needed to redact swathes of his police statement because it was either lies or misleading.

The court heard when he left the witness box a day earlier, a police officer involved in the case followed him outside to make sure he was feeling OK.

During that conversation, Mr Martin confessed he had lied.

“I am sorry. I lied in my police statement. Am I going to get in trouble?” the officer’s notes from the conversation, which were read out in court and Mr Martin agreed were accurate, said.

Under cross examination by top criminal barrister Hayden Rattray, for Bruhn, Mr Martin then admitted he had little memory of the night and that his police statement was mostly just stating things the complainant had told him.

His bombshell evidence included him admitting the complainant had tried to show him her police statement; and told him she had lied to police even before he gave his police statement.

“(She) told you previously that she lied to the police about the rape allegations?” Mr Rattray asked.

Mr Martin replied: “From my memory, yes’.”

The witness said the complainant wanted him to make a statement that supported hers.

“It wasn’t a direct, ‘you must say this in your statement’, it was, ‘you don’t remember what happened, so here’s what happened’,” he said.

But Mr Martin acknowledged that he now knew parts of it, including how she had told him one of the men had assaulted him outside the club, were “utterly false”.

He told the court he had “no memory of the accused really even being there”.

So TLDR is basically "I'm sorry as the key witness I made everything up and lied about two young men committing a heinous crime, and after CCTV footage proved my fabricated events wrong I now admit I have no memory of the accused even being there that night. Also is now a good time to mention I'm neurologically challenged?"

What a grub this 'man' is. And the less said about his stripper woman friend the better.

 

[woopedazz]

Imagine your afl career being derailed because of a false sa accusation

Imagine underpaying a prostitute and then having them extort you for a full fee

 

[tiger_tough]

What an absolute mess. No justice for the alleged victim if she was indeed assaulted, and Bruhn has lost a year of his career and had his reputation tarnished. No winners at all.

---


The prosecution’s case fell apart after key witness Harrison Martin, who was at the club with the complainant on the night, took to the stand and cracked while being questioned under oath last month.

Mr Martin had testified for more than two hours about what he said happened that night, including exchanges with the accused men, and his concerns for the complainant’s safety.

“I am not lying,” he answered when Mr Sinnott’s barrister Moya O’Brien said the evidence, including CCTV outside the club and his Triple 0 call recording, doesn’t match his version of events.

“I am giving you an opportunity to not commit perjury,” Ms O’Brien then told him.

Mr Martin repeated: “I am not lying.”

It was soon after this exchange that the witness told magistrate Kimberley Swadesir he suffered from “FND” – a functional neurological disorder – and needed to get some fresh air.

The case was stood down, but Mr Martin did not return until the next morning, after claiming he wanted to get legal advice.

The next day, in a surprising turn of events, Mr Martin admitted he lied and announced he needed to redact swathes of his police statement because it was either lies or misleading.

The court heard when he left the witness box a day earlier, a police officer involved in the case followed him outside to make sure he was feeling OK.

During that conversation, Mr Martin confessed he had lied.

“I am sorry. I lied in my police statement. Am I going to get in trouble?” the officer’s notes from the conversation, which were read out in court and Mr Martin agreed were accurate, said.

Under cross examination by top criminal barrister Hayden Rattray, for Bruhn, Mr Martin then admitted he had little memory of the night and that his police statement was mostly just stating things the complainant had told him.

His bombshell evidence included him admitting the complainant had tried to show him her police statement; and told him she had lied to police even before he gave his police statement.

“(She) told you previously that she lied to the police about the rape allegations?” Mr Rattray asked.

Mr Martin replied: “From my memory, yes’.”

The witness said the complainant wanted him to make a statement that supported hers.

“It wasn’t a direct, ‘you must say this in your statement’, it was, ‘you don’t remember what happened, so here’s what happened’,” he said.

But Mr Martin acknowledged that he now knew parts of it, including how she had told him one of the men had assaulted him outside the club, were “utterly false”.

He told the court he had “no memory of the accused really even being there”.

What pieces of shit the 'victim' and 'witness' are.

 

[tiger_tough]

So will he stay on the list and play next season?

 

[Sttew]

Geelong midfielder Tanner Bruhn can finally be revealed as the player who spent the 2025 season fighting a rape charge, as the case against him was officially dropped on Tuesday.

A suppression order has prevented the naming of Bruhn, 23, since he was charged earlier this year with raping an intoxicated woman he met outside a strip club.

bf always first with the news

The dramatic moment that sank the rape case against Geelong midfielder Tanner Bruhn

Bruhn’s lawyer said the footy star had been “to hell and back” fighting allegations that jeopardised his career and liberty.

www.theage.com.au

Case dropped with complainant and leading prosecution witness admitting to lying. We now know the prosecution long held doubts about the medical and factual evidence but it took the leading prosecution witness to admit in court his story was a complete lie and the complainant had put him up to it.

 

[fpm84]

So will he stay on the list and play next season?

He's contracted next year and free to train and play (also trained for most of this year), main question yet to be resolved is around his wellbeing but from a legal POV this is all done now.

 

[Munich]

So will he stay on the list and play next season?

Yes. Geelong have stood by him.