plugger66 wrote:Leo.J wrote:Cairnsman wrote:Johnny Member wrote:Cairnsman wrote:Did I mention that the victim is someones Daughter.
FFS. How can this make anybody gloat or feel like it is some type of revenge.
This thread makes me sick and ashamed to be a football fan.
I don't think anyone would gloat about the alledged incident happening.
ummm. there are posts in this thread that are doing just that.
Where might they be?
People seem to be pleased that the people involved in this case despite being Collingwood players are being named in the media, not happy about what they've been alledged to have done.
What has been printed is what has been said in a court of law, not concocted by some tabloid creative writer, at the expense of our clubs brand.
These two things are a little different.
The collingwood players havent done anything wrong though.
There was evidence presented in the committal hearing that, indeed, the AFL players involved had done something very wrong. I reckon there is still a long way to go with this.
To those who say, 'but, they haven't even been charged', I say 'not yet'.
There is nothing on the books to say all potential charges, against all potential defendents, have to be made at the one time and go through one court case.
I would not be at all surprised if the DPP is running this case because it believes it is the one most likely to succeed and deliver some justice for the girl. And, if they are successful, I am sure they would review the potential for other related charges.
Any decision on whether to proceed with other charges would be influenced by the outcome of the first trial. There is also the potential for the defendent in the first trial to change his plea mid-trial, on the basis of a forecast conviction and the offer of a lenient sentence in exchange for his testimony in subsequent trials. That is precisely how Purana got most of their cases that are still progessing through the courts. There is also the potential for others who may foresee themselves being caught up in any subsequent actions to rediscover their memory, and decide to get out in of what may come, in exchange for not being charged.
The other reason for tackling one case to start with is the state of mind of the alleged victim. There was some common knowledge late last year that the complexity of the whole events of that night, if presented in a single trial of all potential defendents, and bought on the basis of the girl's testimony alone (aside from the forensic evidence gathered in hospital) would be too difficult, particularly for her. Indeed, it is highly likely (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) she felt completely overwhelmed at the prospect of being one out against a defence team for multiple defendents, in a case involving high profile people who had already exercised significant power over her before. And, she had seen the media at work within days of making her allegations.
It is a lot more difficult running cases involving multiple defendents and a single victim (who is the only witness who was present testifying for the prosecution). But, the strength in numbers becomes a liability the minute the ranks look like breaking. The best way to break those ranks is to isolate the individuals. If they have perpetrated the actions presented in evidence in the committal hearing, they will have no allegiance to each other when the cracks start appearing. If they are the type who would carry out such crimes as those alleged, then they'll fold like a crook poker hand when presented with an opportunity to extricate themselves, or receive a lesser punishment.
I really do hope the first case is successful in achieving justice for the girl (and before anyone accuses me of prejudging, read that sentence again). If that outcome is a guilty verdict, then I hope the girl is able to take some comfort from it and participate with a prosecution strategy involving subsequent actions.
Nah, this has a long way to run. Eat the elephant a bit at a time.
'I have no new illusions, and I have no old illusions' - Vladimir Putin, Geneva, June 2021