Barrygate

[moccha]

It won't hurt......Good luck

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by liz
I'm not disputing that it's unclear what "the act" was. But even the most one-eyed supporter would find it hard to argue that Hall didn't make some contact.

But Liz what the supporters think is irrelevant. The matter must be decided by the rules and the law. Technicalities are very important for the defence. Even if Hall punched Maguire, and even if it realy did wind him, the points of law will be argued. I am confident that is enough to get him off.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by moccha
I really don't think Maguire will have much influence. The video is damning enough.

What's he gonna say "I was just taking a breather"?

'We were jostling, and Barry pushed me. Because I was underdone going into the game, it caused pain disproportionate to the force of the contact.'

Game, set, match. Barry walks.

Edit: btw, the video isn't that bad.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
But in terms of gathering evidence in order to lay a charge - can they ask the alleged victim?

I think so. They spoke to Grant last year.

[Provost]

Originally posted by Charlie
'We were jostling, and Barry pushed me. Because I was underdone going into the game, it caused pain disproportionate to the force of the contact.'

Game, set, match. Barry walks.

ROFLMAO

I think if he walked in with that written down on a piece of paper, handed it over as his statement of events Barry would be back out a free man in a second

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
But in terms of gathering evidence in order to lay a charge - can they ask the alleged victim?

Good question. They may well do because of the poor video evidence. But they didn't with the other reports that were dismissed for this reason this year.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Charlie
'We were jostling, and Barry pushed me. Because I was underdone going into the game, it caused pain disproportionate to the force of the contact.'

Game, set, match. Barry walks.

Edit: btw, the video isn't that bad.

When you draft an affidavit for a client you should use, as far as possible, the witnesses words. So:

He was tryin' to lead, I was tryin' to stop him, and he gave me a shove. Me ribs were a bit sore already. ******** it hurt which was strange 'cause he never shoved me that 'ard

[Charlie]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
When you draft an affidavit for a client you should use, as far as possible, the witnesses words. So:

He was tryin' to lead, I was tryin' to stop him, and he gave me a shove. Me ribs were a bit sore already. ******** it hurt which was strange 'cause he never shoved me that 'ard

I like big words.

[Matt79]

Could this be used in Hall's defence?

I was trolling over at Saintsational to see their reactions to the loss and came across this!

If this is indeed true about Barry Stoneham and what he said, surely he would NOT be allowed to comment on possible incidents before the match review committee views it and makes their decision. **For those that don't know, Stoneham is a panel member on the tribunal**

Any lawyers out there who could state whether he is allowed to say this type of thing (of course it may not be true)..BUT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the half time break Barry Stoneham stated Hall was in trouble if the Swans got through to the GF.

He made the comment after stating he felt the Saints would run over the Swans in the second half.

He had seen the replay of the incident with Maguire and said it looked like a week at least.

He made the comment in front of 30 - 40 people.

Why is this info so interesting?

I asked him after the match if the quote was on the record.
He replied he was scheduled to sit on the tribunal this week and no it was not. ....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.saintsational.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15069

Any thoughts?

[Schneiderman]

Well for a start, its obviously crap because there is no longer a "week at least" capacity in the system. Its about activation points based on clear cut definitions. No way that a tribunal member would talk in those terms this late in the season.

If it WAS true, there could be a libel suit in the offing too

[FredFlintstone]

Someone should make sure our club officials are aware of it just in case?

[Charlie]

Schneiderman - we WANT this to be true.

Why? Because I've already sent it to the Herald Sun. They most likely would have seen it by now. Let's just keep it low key. See if they pick up the ball and run with it.

[legaff]

The herald sun wont support anything in Sydney's favour...

[anniswan]

Originally posted by legaff
The herald sun wont support anything in Sydney's favour...

They will against the WCE I think

[punter257]

very interesting stuff there, of course we wont be needing all this ******** as hally will get off

but if he doesnt there would be a few lawyers around the place offering their services - seems to be a few dark areas in all this