Scandal Tom Silvagni convicted of rape

[parano1a]

And congratulations to the young woman not accepting a pay off and went to court, gave evidence and saw it through.

Absolutely. How many dozens of women have accepted hush money to cover up crimes of AFL/NRL stars or their families over the years? Even late Carlton president John Elliott admitted it happened frequently.

 

[Saint12]

I hope Jack Silvagni

1

Jack Silvagni

Age

27

Ht

194cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

D/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.0

3star

K

7.1

3star

HB

3.8

3star

M

3.8

4star

T

2.9

4star

MG

176.9

3star

D

5.3

1star

K

4.0

1star

HB

1.3

1star

M

1.7

2star

T

0.7

1star

MG

91.0

2star

D

9.2

3star

K

6.2

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

3.4

4star

T

2.8

5star

MG

131.4

3star

gets the support he will need from the Saints when he arrives.

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Straight to the boneyard for Tom the rat little piece of shit. World on a platter for him and he STILL chose to commit one of the worst crimes imaginable.

Hopefully the victim can rest a little easier knowing justice is being served. Hope he gets a LONG time.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

What parents wouldn't try to support their son when in trouble?

Ones who dont protect babies from the negatives of their actions really.

The attitude they are showing is basically why he thinks he could do it in the first place.

 

[PP34]

SOS & the family do not come off well in this article

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/inside-the-fight-for-open-justice-to-be-able-to-name-convicted-rapist-tom-silvagni/news-story/446200489a7e8f818580014ab13550c1

Fought tooth and nail to stop him being named, even playing the ubiquitous "mental health card"

----

Judge finally slapped them down ....

The gag order was lifted on Thursday after County Court judge Andrew Palmer noted Tom Silvagni’s name had become “a matter of common knowledge” despite the suppression order.

“In my own experience, people talking to me about it, who don’t know I’m in any way involved in the case, have known the identity of this person. These are outside legal circles.”

Silvagni’s lawyers pressed for the order to continue on the basis of their client’s mental ill health.

“It’s not just a concern about his own name; it’s about how that impacts on his family,” Hallowes said.

But Palmer said: “At some point he will have to reconcile with the reality.”

I do agree it is a bit laughable.

However suppression orders do serve a purpose if someone in this instance ends up not guilty.

And as a lawyer friend told me, they simply wouldn’t have had time to lift it until now.

 

[PP34]

Tom was footballer too, just didn't make it at the top level.

It's not just the crime, it's the cover-up. Stephen Silvagni was very much involved in keeping the case secret from the public. I'm positive there would be many other similar cases we don't know about covered up due to the supposed privilege of the rich and famous.

What is he meant to scream and shout that his son is accused of rape?

Anyone with a bit of money would hire a good lawyer and do their best to keep it out of the news for as long as possible. That’s not a footy thing.

Happens all the time in the courts.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

What is he meant to scream and shout that his son is accused of rape?

Anyone with a bit of money would hire a good lawyer and do their best to keep it out of the news for as long as possible. That’s not a footy thing.

Happens all the time in the courts.

Not really.

Some people let their child be grown adults who look after themselves

 

[Woolly Mammoth]

It's a male issue. Clearly.

One thing doesn't negate the other. It is a male issue, even in 2025 as much as we tell ourselves "we've made a lot of progress" a young males journey into sexuality is still framed in terms of concepts of conquest and notches on the belt, which in turn allows for excuses to be made for them as that framework is expected and normalised. But anyone who has been even vaugely around football clubs, and anyone who has read 'night games' by Anna Krien will see a pretty clear picture that in the clandestine groupthink world of footy clubs, steeped in a tradition of exceptionalism, predatory sexual behaviour is (in most cases) characterised as p*ss funny road story fodder. So anyone in that environment who goes beyond that gets much less pushback, and more excuses made for them, than the rest of society.

Pointing that out is totally valid, let's not shout people down, or misquote/misrepresent people on this thread who do point it out. We are on a footy forum after all.

 

[Cmarsh]

Ones who dont protect babies from the negatives of their actions really.

The attitude they are showing is basically why he thinks he could do it in the first place.

Just because they sought a suppression order does not equate to them thinking he shouldn't face consequences. If a family member is in trouble, you would still do what you can to support in the situation.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

You do need to be careful when passing judgment on suppression orders.

People should keep in mind that we get our information on them from the media, and the media will ALWAYS oppose them. Because the media want to publish everything. They want their clicks, it's their business.

So as soon as there's any sort of suppression order they'll start with the familiar wailing... "different rules for them!!" "the rich protecting themselves!!" "it's all about how much money you have!!"

Its their usual cheap line that wins easy support.

Money doesn't buy suppression orders. It can certainly help, if you have a team of lawyers working on it for you, but it doesn't guarantee you shit. There isn't literally "different rules for the rich". That's absurd.

They can be granted for a range of different reasons including some very valid ones - publishing may compromise another case, for instance. This has often been the case and still the media will roll out their usual shit about "high priced lawyers winning suppression orders for the wealthy!!"... when it's simply not the case and it is in place for a good reason.

A judge makes a call on it and judges are one profession where I'm relatively happy to say... they're not stupid. They're not going to be easily fooled even if there is a team of lawyers arguing for something. Judges are overwhelmingly ex-lawyers which works very well because they know all the bullshit arguments they pull.

If a suppression order isn't appropriate then generally a judge will deny it or have it lifted quickly. That's exactly what has happened in this case. The system worked fine.

 

[PP34]

Not really.

Some people let their child be grown adults who look after themselves

Oh please.

Any decent parent is probably going to stand by their child even if they’ve done something terrible.

It’s a shocking crime but their job as parents is literally to look after their child.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Just because they sought a suppression order does not equate to them thinking he shouldn't face consequences. If a family member is in trouble, you would still do what you can to support in the situation.

Its literally exactly what it equates too.

What is the other scenario ?

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Oh please.

Any decent parent is probably going to stand by their child even if they’ve done something terrible.

It’s a shocking crime but their job as parents is literally to look after their child.

Its sad that Western culture believes this

Once you reach 21 its the childs job to look after the parents... Perhaps if he was doing that this thread wouldnt exist. When no one relies on you and you rely on everyone its easy to just make whatever mistake you feel like

 

[Mynamesinuse]

Joe Bloggs's parents don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on QCs and suppression orders to cover up his mistakes. This is the issue, of course they are entitled to support their son.

If they had it they would.
Don’t pretend otherwise.

 

[PP34]

Joe Bloggs's parents don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on QCs and suppression orders to cover up his mistakes. This is the issue, of course they are entitled to support their son.

There’s plenty of reasons for a suppression order.

Don’t know why you’re acting like it’s to cover up crimes.

You do realise in a case like this it probably benefited the victim to ensure he actually got found guilty?

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

If they had it they would.
Don’t pretend otherwise.

I wouldnt

Jail would be a safer place then the absolute asswhooping id be giving him

 

[Kappa]

You do need to be careful when passing judgment on suppression orders.

People should keep in mind that we get our information on them from the media, and the media will ALWAYS oppose them. Because the media want to publish everything. They want their clicks, it's their business.

So as soon as there's any sort of suppression order they'll start with the familiar wailing... "different rules for them!!" "the rich protecting themselves!!" "it's all about how much money you have!!"

Its their usual cheap line that wins easy support.

Money doesn't buy suppression orders. It can certainly help, if you have a team of lawyers working on it for you, but it doesn't guarantee you shit. There isn't literally "different rules for the rich". That's absurd.

They can be granted for a range of different reasons including some very valid ones - publishing may compromise another case, for instance. This has often been the case and still the media will roll out their usual shit about "high priced lawyers winning suppression orders for the wealthy!!"... when it's simply not the case and it is in place for a good reason.

A judge makes a call on it and judges are one profession where I'm relatively happy to say... they're not stupid. They're not going to be easily fooled even if there is a team of lawyers arguing for something. Judges are overwhelmingly ex-lawyers which works very well because they know all the bullshit arguments they pull.

If a suppression order isn't appropriate then generally a judge will deny it or have it lifted quickly. That's exactly what has happened in this case. The system worked fine.

LOTS of judges are stupid.

Having a law degree doesn't make someone wise or a good decision maker

 

[BillyElliott]

So for those posters in Melbourne, was it common knowledge around the town it was him?

Yes. And today's judge acknowledged it was already common knowledge on social media.

 

[deck]

What wealth does to people man. Entitled POS's.

Not sure wealth has anything to do with bar the exception to be able to afford to go down the suppression route.

 

[Kappa]

I hope Jack Silvagni gets the support he will need from the Saints when he arrives.

I hope supporters don't equate his brothers crimes with him.

 

[parano1a]

You do realise in a case like this it probably benefited the victim to ensure he actually got found guilty?

If this was the case, the prosecution would have applied for the order to protect the victim.

However, the fact is the defendant applied and the reason given was to protect the reputational damage to the Silvagni family name.

 

[Kappa]

So for those posters in Melbourne, was it common knowledge around the town it was him?

The victim has been posting on tik tok for ages about it, and in all her videos theres people in the comments saying who it was a long time ago.

 

[Rod Stroker]

Jack can take comfort that he's no longer the most hated Silvagni

you can already hear the abuse he's going to cop from over the fence for this

 

[Saucery]

Oh please.

Any decent parent is probably going to stand by their child even if they’ve done something terrible.

It’s a shocking crime but their job as parents is literally to look after their child.

So, if you let your child face the consequences of their actions, you're not a decent parent? It's that kind parenting that simply encourages overreach by the child. I was a teacher once and the most difficult, entitled children usually lead back to parents who act like attack dogs when their little angles choices are questioned.

 

[Rod Stroker]

So for those posters in Melbourne, was it common knowledge around the town it was him?

even the judge was like "bro, everyone knows it's you, I'm killing the gag order"