Rumour Rumors of cat player in big trouble

[TheEscapeClub]

Such garbage. . You know zip about due process, clearly.

The witness’ admissions have EVERYTHING to do with being in a Court, under oath and cross examined by an expert.

The Article states quite clearly the Crown witness went up in smoke IN COURT, what does that tell you?

- not during Committal, not during Interviews, not when he made the statement. That should tell anyone even of limited intelligence that the Court process upturns behaviours (especially in witnesses) the Police often do not.

Costs would be awarded in most cases where a crown witnesses goes up in smoke. It’s a huge waste of everyone’s time.

Be clear -

- The witnesses would have been interviewed IN DEPTH prior to it going to Court.

- The Prosecutor would have read the brief and on the basis of Statements (Not a hunch like you seem to think is enough) put it up for trial.

I’ve seen intelligent professional men reduced to tears by a good KC, in front of a Judge (Not a Magi) - it’s a highly intimidating environment.

The article also states that the police were in possession of CCTV footage that contradicted his statement, before it got to this stage.

 

[sleep]

No. People are saying there is no evidence that the alleged victim extorted the alleged offender. Talks on a forum and talks around the place are not evidence. If the police actually charge her with extortion, well sure then it's a different game. But at the moment you are all just jumping on a narrative without hard evidence because it's suits you, and makes you all feel okay because this guy can play football and plays for your club.

It's all word vs word. Yes they're are "friends who have said she lied" and there's also "friends who called the police worried for the alleged victims safety"

I think for Geelong fans to just pile on the alleged victim accusing them of extortion is disgusting. We don't know what happened. We don't even know if the alleged victim is a legitimate sex worker. There's a lot of assumptions going on and like I said previously, paying somebody doesn't mean all bets are off.

Where you at Richo?

 

[The Blue Max]

The article also states that the police were in possession of CCTV footage that contradicted his statement, before it got to this stage.

Contradictions of a Statement are not uncommon - it depends on how salient they are to the pertinent facts.

 

[WillHayward]

Contradictions of a Statement are not uncommon - it depends on how salient they are to the pertinent facts.

In this case VERY!

 

[WillHayward]

Such garbage. . You know zip about due process, clearly.

The witness’ admissions have EVERYTHING to do with being in a Court, under oath and cross examined by an expert.

The Article states quite clearly the Crown witness went up in smoke IN COURT, what does that tell you?

- not during Committal, not during Interviews, not when he made the statement. That should tell anyone even of limited intelligence that the Court process upturns behaviours (especially in witnesses) the Police often do not.

Costs would be awarded in most cases where a crown witnesses goes up in smoke. It’s a huge waste of everyone’s time.

Be clear -

- The witnesses would have been interviewed IN DEPTH prior to it going to Court.

- The Prosecutor would have read the brief and on the basis of Statements (Not a hunch like you seem to think is enough) put it up for trial.

I’ve seen intelligent professional men reduced to tears by a good KC, in front of a Judge (Not a Magi) - it’s a highly intimidating environment.

What crap. The OPP is full of campaigners who make mistakes all the time.

And the biggest liars inside a courtroom are police. Often to try and get in a conviction in a total bullshit case where they think they are doing "justice".

 

[Mitchell Madness]

First off, ive been very much in the 'innocent until provem guilty' camp, but those singing and dancing about it being a false claim, there is nothing to say the claim is false, just that the witness embelished the story.
Many rape cases involve this, which is why many cases get thrown out, and its why we have this percieved idea that rapists are protected

 

[WillHayward]

It's a malicious prosecution but they are notoriously difficult to prove (OPP and cops close ranks and lie) so probably not much Tanner can do now but get on with his life and career.

 

[The Blue Max]

What crap. The OPP is full of campaigners who make mistakes all the time.

And the biggest liars inside a courtroom are police. Often to try and get in a conviction in a total bullshit case where they think they are doing "justice".

How long did you work for the Vic OPP to be able to make this statement?

I worked for the Commonwealth DPP from 1987-1990.

My experience was most of the lawyers were either pretty average - but there were a few real go-getters who would eventually become the Director or move into private practice.

I doubt the Vic OPP is much different.

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Doesn’t surprise - but Geeeelong is not Australia.

Agreed, don’t even know what point I was really trying to make, was a little blitzed

 

[callmeX]

This thread is full of the same bullshit the courts and parliament are full of.
1. Labour has appointed most of 5he judges on the bench at the moment
2. Opp prefers to take matters involving sexual assault to court than make the decision themselves
3. Cops are as corrupt as everyone else
4. Yes tanner should have been home asleep etc etc, but he is not the first person to go to the strippers
5. George pell was convicted eaven though the witness lied about the wine, and other details.
6. Society is too woke and wanting to prosecute.
7. By the way why did the honest police hold back phone evidence from the defence and get reprimanded by the judge

Just awaiting for the lass to be charged with drink driving, a crime she confessed to.

 

[callmeX]

I wonder how much all this cost Cotton On. Interesting that Bruhn hasn’t played all year despite being innocent. Where were the friends originally when they charged him. Where they lying the first time it are they lying now for the money. No one will truly know.

This is so libel, hope they wash you out

 

[Senor M]

This thread is full of the same bullshit the courts and parliament are full of.
1. Labour has appointed most of 5he judges on the bench at the moment

 

[Red_man2008]

This is so liable, hope they wash you out

What do you mean liable. I havent said anything that isn’t already known. I’m talking about cotton ons brand. They would have lost money as a brand due to being connected to a club with this going on. And now that the women lied do they have rights to sue as well.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

So as it turns out, atleast 1 person associated with that mob ISN'T a campaigner.

Good on you TB!!

 

[The Blue Max]

This is so liable, hope they wash you out

If you’re going to pretend you have some understanding of Civil Action at least earn to spell the terms used.

It’s ‘Libel’.

 

[Fabab]

If you’re going to pretend you have some understanding of Civil Action at least earn to spell the terms used.

It’s ‘Libel’.

Did you mean learn or just earn?

 

[callmeX]

What do you mean liable. I havent said anything that isn’t already known. I’m talking about cotton ons brand. They would have lost money as a brand due to being connected to a club with this going on. And now that the women lied do they have rights to sue as well.

Champ, cotton on is fine. Your insinuation is as cheap as your mouth.

 

[callmeX]

If you’re going to pretend you have some understanding of Civil Action at least earn to spell the terms used.

It’s ‘Libel’.

How does one learn earn to spell
absolute gimpy private school boy

 

[callmeX]

How long did you work for the Vic OPP to be able to make this statement?

I worked for the Commonwealth DPP from 1987-1990.

My experience was most of the lawyers were either pretty average - but there were a few real go-getters who would eventually become the Director or move into private practice.

I doubt the Vic OPP is much different.

Wow we have a pensioner in the house mixing it up
Do you have a CSHCC yet

 

[Red_man2008]

If you’re going to pretend you have some understanding of Civil Action at least earn to spell the terms used.

It’s ‘Libel’.

Depends if he wants me to be legally answerable or if he was claiming I was publishing defamation.

 

[The Blue Max]

How does one learn earn to spell
absolute gimpy private school boy

No, I’m just someone who knows so much more about the law than you.

And this ‘pensioner’ has noticed you corrected your post.

I can also spot a ‘cardboard cut out of a hero’ when I see one.

 

[The Blue Max]

Depends if he wants me to be legally answerable or if he was claiming I was publishing defamation.

True - but ‘intent’ is a higher function.

 

[Dan Moody]

Imagine, if you will, this exact scenario.

2 young athletes attend a "gentleman's club".
these same young athletes make a proposal to an entertainer for sexual favours that involve money, whilst said entertainer is leaving venue.
the entertainer declines but has trouble convincing athletes that she in not interested.
athletes proceed with their original intention anyway until screaming alerts another independent male.
the assault stops, athletes depart and police are called.
witness statements are given by victim and independent witness who attended scene.
investigations ensue and charges laid.
12 months on, charges are dropped after independent male witness admits he lied to police during witness statement, that HE himself was assaulted by athletes when he intervened in the original assault on female entertainer.

charges dropped based purely on the fact that the male witness lied about being assaulted, thus the case is dismissed purely on that reason alone.

now imagine a court stenographer, who has had front row access to this entire scenario and has absolutely no doubt, based on prosecution evidence and access to witness testimonies, medical evidence and defendant statements, that a technicality derailed the prosecution.

make no mistake, the athletes are innocent of assaulting the male witness only, and only that charge

 

[jwikked]

Imagine, if you will, this exact scenario.

2 young athletes attend a "gentleman's club".
these same young athletes make a proposal to an entertainer for sexual favours that involve money, whilst said entertainer is leaving venue.
the entertainer declines but has trouble convincing athletes that she in not interested.
athletes proceed with their original intention anyway until screaming alerts another independent male.
the assault stops, athletes depart and police are called.
witness statements are given by victim and independent witness who attended scene.
investigations ensue and charges laid.
12 months on, charges are dropped after independent male witness admits he lied to police during witness statement, that HE himself was assaulted by athletes when he intervened in the original assault on female entertainer.

charges dropped based purely on the fact that the male witness lied about being assaulted, thus the case is dismissed purely on that reason alone.

now imagine a court stenographer, who has had front row access to this entire scenario and has absolutely no doubt, based on prosecution evidence and access to witness testimonies, medical evidence and defendant statements, that a technicality derailed the prosecution.

make no mistake, the athletes are innocent of assaulting the male witness only, and only that charge

Specifically who are you picturing when you invent this scenario?

 

[callmeX]

Imagine, if you will, this exact scenario.

2 young athletes attend a "gentleman's club".
these same young athletes make a proposal to an entertainer for sexual favours that involve money, whilst said entertainer is leaving venue.
the entertainer declines but has trouble convincing athletes that she in not interested.
athletes proceed with their original intention anyway until screaming alerts another independent male.
the assault stops, athletes depart and police are called.
witness statements are given by victim and independent witness who attended scene.
investigations ensue and charges laid.
12 months on, charges are dropped after independent male witness admits he lied to police during witness statement, that HE himself was assaulted by athletes when he intervened in the original assault on female entertainer.

charges dropped based purely on the fact that the male witness lied about being assaulted, thus the case is dismissed purely on that reason alone.

now imagine a court stenographer, who has had front row access to this entire scenario and has absolutely no doubt, based on prosecution evidence and access to witness testimonies, medical evidence and defendant statements, that a technicality derailed the prosecution.

make no mistake, the athletes are innocent of assaulting the male witness only, and only that charge

Nice story