The Right to remain Silent.

[GrumpyOne]

Basic principle for accused in a court of law.

Stinger may be a better source on this, but from my days on a jury, I remember being instructed that silence can not be interpreted as an admission of guilt.

As a result of the Baker fiasco, I would imagine that we are about to see a whole lot of accused players demanding this legal right in the tribunal.

[The Saintsational Man]

[JeffDunne]

If Baker had remained silent they would have believed that liar Barry Kirkwood.

He would be facing a 12+ week suspension and not 7.

[riccardo]

Cannot believe Baker is convicted on the weight of his own evidence.

I would be advising all AFL players at the tribunal to keep thier mouths tightly shut in future, even on the field. They may just incriminate themselves on conspiricy to deny the AFL its bum chumming of non-Vic teams.

[Mr Magic]

If Baker had remained silent they would have believed that liar Barry Kirkwood.

He would be facing a 12+ week suspension and not 7.

Spot on JD.
It would appear that they were going to get Bakes on something. When the testimony of Kirkwood turned out to be less than satisfactory, they had to scramble to find something to 'hang' Bakes with. It is probably why the deliberation took so long - they had to cook up the scheme that turned Bakes into guilty of 'reckless' and then 'rough play'.


Initially I'm sure they were hoping that Kirkwood's testimony would be enough.

Interestingly, it was the testimony Kirkwood gave the AFL Investigations Officer to put the case up and I don't understand when he admitted that he didn't actually see the collision, why wasn't the case stopped immediately? Surely if the evidence that prompted the charge is faound to be lacking, how can the charge proceed?

[Enrico_Misso]

Well it worked perfectly for Alan Bond

[GrumpyOne]

Well it worked perfectly for Alan Bond

Yeah.... I remember it well.

"I can't remember anything, my mind has gone....... sell Quintex buy BHP....... no, I can't remember anything at all"

[stinger]

Basic principle for accused in a court of law.

Stinger may be a better source on this, but from my days on a jury, I remember being instructed that silence can not be interpreted as an admission of guilt.

As a result of the Baker fiasco, I would imagine that we are about to see a whole lot of accused players demanding this legal right in the tribunal.

well ...they all have that right now...it is up to the afl to put evidence before the tribunal....either through its umpires ..or other sources.........baker didn't have to say anything.......although it would be usually in his interests to do so if he is innocent...as baker is......but he should have been schooled..or coached beforehand by his advocate.........

[stinger]

If Baker had remained silent they would have believed that liar Barry Kirkwood.

He would be facing a 12+ week suspension and not 7.

anyone know where the sh!t lives.......