Entries received for 22 April 2000 - Suggest a new expert witness to be introduced to tribunal hearings.
|
...this weeks winner is...
There are several types of expert witnesses that have not yet appeared at the AFL Tribunal and/or Appeals Board. Hence the following possibilities, inspired by some of the great Hollywood courtroom scenes. Enjoy... (1) the Witness Protection Program witness (complete with pixelated face). Witness obviously knows something but is fearful of retribution. eg. Anyone stupid enough to testify against John Worsfold/Mick Martyn. (2) The hostile "I'm-Bigger-Than-This-Courtroom" witness. An expert in the given field, but refuses to acknowlege that something wrong has happened (a la Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men" ) eg. Brian Collis - "Glen Archer, what do you have to say to Darryn Goldspink's charge of unduly rough play, and please tell the truth." Glen Archer - "You want the truth?" Brian Collis - "I think we're entitled to it." Glen Archer - "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! Deep down inside, in places you don't want to talk about at your season launches, and your Colonial Stadium openings, you want me on that field! You NEED me on that field! We use words like 'aggression', 'physical' and '110 per cent' and live by them - you use them as a punchline! We play a physical game. And someone has to play that game hard, providing the clashes that the fans want to see. Who's gonna do it - you? You, Umpire Goldspink? You stand there in your maggotty-white uniform, profiting from a game that needs the entertainment that I provide, and then question the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said 'Thank-you' and went on your way. EITHER WAY, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK YOU'RE ENTITLED TO!!!!" (3) the Everyday-Joe Witness, seizing his/her one moment in the spotlight (a la those morons who say they've seen a UFO, but have no evidence, just a dodgy recollection). eg. Frank Nobody from Hicksville : "Uhhh, yeah. There were all these bright lights, and I saw this guy, right, and he was running towards this other guy, and uhh, after that, I don't really remember anything. When I woke up, I was covered in this stuff, like beer, only worse. Yeah that's right, it was light beer." (4) the Alibi witness, who testifies that the accused player never left their side. eg. Tony Liberatore: "No, Alessio didn't do it - I got him in a squirrel grip early in the last quarter, and didn't let go until the final siren. There's no way he could've done it." (5) The Betrayal witness, who drops the accused right in it instead of giving him an alibi (a la Jamie Lee Curtis in "A Fish Called Wanda" ) eg. "Yes, that's right, I played on Fraser Brown for the whole match. I saw him leave his position on the half-forward flank, late in the second quarter, and head for Mercuri who was in the centre. I remember thinking ' What would Fraser be doing with a crowbar just before halftime?' " (6) the Innocent Bystander witness, whose version of events conflicts with the official version (a la the Grassy Knoll witnesses in "J.F.K." ) eg. (American accents optional) "Ah told the authorities what ah'm tellin' you, but nobody ever acks'd me to make a statement." "And the man came from in front of the victim, not from behind like they say." "He come from over thar, behind that interchange bench, and he hit him, and then he run off agin." "Ah know what ah saw" "And if you look at this home-movie I have, you can see right here, his head jerks back and to the right, which is not consistent with someone being hit from behind on the left. Back, and to the right......" The AFL seems to fear witness type (6) most of all, as they have taken steps to make sure that the general public does not witness anything at matches apart from what the AFL says happened. eg - removal of standing room areas at suburban grounds (grassy knolls, if you will), - banning video cameras (no awkward Zupruder films for them to explain), - producing convoluted ticketing systems (no fans at match = no witnesses). Thanks for a great program, Vaughan Crawford A Star AFL player reported for a misdemeanor during a previous game of football would be wise for that particular player and his club to bring with them to a tribunal appearance a 'fake-ologist.' This so-called expert may be in the form of a current day player in the AFL. Given top billing would be the master of faking, Matthew Lloyd (Essendon) followed closely by Matthew Knights (Richmond) or perhaps Brett Allison (North Melb./Sydney) fame who has already been nominated for two academy awards would do the job. If AFL players were barred from these appearances or a 'fake-ologist' had to come from another sporting code then look no further than someone from English premier league football (soccer). If all else fails and as a reliable back-up anyone from the fairer sex would make an excellent witness as they have been known to fake it once or twice in the past. Jordan Devereux Dear Coodabeens, Following Aaron Hamill's statement thanking Carlton for putting together such a good story for his appeal hearing last September, it seems obvious that the essential tribunal witness for the defence is now a professional storyteller. With that in mind, I suggest that certain authors would have backgrounds or interests which would make them ideal witnesses for the various clubs. Adelaide - Salman Rushdie (used to being hated by those from a foreign place.) Brisbane - Germaine Greer (kidnapped for merger purposes.) Carlton - Jeffrey Archer (conservative politics, high finance connections, widely hated.) Collingwood - David Williamson (The Club and Brilliant Lies, what else would he need?) Essendon - Arthur C Clarke (Visionary, innovative and comfortable with Martians.) Fremantle - Tom Kenneally (If they'd kept all the good players they've let go their list would be longer than Schindler's.) Geelong - Oscar Wilde (Classy but still suffering from that reputation for being soft.) Hawthorn - Edward Gibbon (Skilled at recording the decline and fall of great empires.) Kangaroos - DH Lawrence (They've done everything else to attract a following.) Melbourne - Ernest Hemingway (His interests in hunting, shooting and fishing would help him to fit in with the culture of the Melbourne Club.) Port Adelaide - Enid Blighton (She was also successful in a lower standard but has suffered from a declining reputation recently.) Richmond - Stephen King (He copes well with horror and bloodletting.) St Kilda - John LeCarre (Comfortable when writing about intrigues and the public failures of a private organisation.) Sydney - Peter Corris (Crime fiction from the harbour city.) West Coast Eagles - Jacqui Collins (A flashy west coaster.) Western Bulldogs - Winston Churchill (Who else could represent the Bulldog spirit?) It might be noted that we already have several of these names in the competition, but not necessarily at the clubs to which I,ve allocated them. Your faithfully, Greg Hoysted I think every AFL club should hire a Theologian as an expert witness for tribunal appearances. That way the Theologian can determine whether the club/individual was crucified or not. Digger would like that one! cheers, Jamie Sanderson The biorhythms computer guy from the Game: "I was trying to improve Fraser's performance by 20% but accidently hit "ctrl-alt-esc-E". This unfortunately raised his elbow by an extra 20%." Psychologist: "The accused player has recently been diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder (nee Multiple Personality Disorder) and I am confident that reckless act so clearly evident on the video evidence was actually the work of one of Glen's alters, "Rocky", a former boxer with an anger mangement problem. O. J. Simpson's lawyer: "I will demonstrate to members of the appeals board that the wrong man was originally brought before the tribunal.....As you can see, the number 23 Brisbane Lions gurnsey is clearly too small for Mr Leppitsch." Steven Watts St Kilda have called on the services of Oscar winning Director Bruce Beresford, to highlight some technical flaws in the video report of Barry Hall. After viewing the footage on the nightly news services, Beresford contacted Linton Street officials stating that there were some editing and lighting mistakes in the video. Primarily, with the lights shining from behind Hall, his vast body has cast a shadow over the deminuative Simpson. "The poor lighting of the prolific rover is the sort of stuff you wouldn't accept from high school students", grunted Beresford. This basic errror makes it difficult to distinguish whether Simpson is wearing a North jersey, or a Collingwood jersey. Beresford added that had Hall himself mistaken Simpson for a Collingwood player, the headbutt would have been a natural reaction rather than a premeditated attack. In addition to the bad lighting, Beresford was disgusted with the editing, noting that the vision cut away before impact was made, rendering the footage useless. "The whole purpose of the scene was to incriminate Hall but the editing team has eliminated any chance of this". Beresford added, "Hell, the umpire may have headbutted Simpson and he's (the umpire) trying to get himself off the hook!". Beresford has offered to re-shoot the video under his own direction. Rumors already abound that the part of Barry Hall will be played by Dolf Lundrum, and either Brad Pitt or Aussie Guy Pierce will play Simpson. Ryan Sheenan's role has already been accepted by Ray Charles. It's good to be back. GLENN ROGERS Dear Coodabeens, For striking charges where the defence is that "it looks much worse on camera than it really was," the expert witness they should call is Blue Wiggle. Yellow Wiggle may be the brains and Purple Wiggle the comic relief, but it's the unsung Blue Wiggle whose canny choreography skills enable Captain Feathersword to seem much more aggressive on camera than he really is. On the other hand, if the player is claiming he "doesn't know why he's there" or that "he hasn't done anything," the witness to be called who's an expert in both these fields is Peter Costigan. Regards, Stuart McArthur Dear Simon, I think the expert next introduced at the Tribunal will be a linguist, "a person skilled in languages or linguistics". Where linguistics is the study of languages and their structure. So the senario is as follows : Umpire Bryan Sheehan has reported Stephen Silvagni for striking. (this must be fantasy because the fullback of the century would never infringe to this extent) My expert linguist would get SIlvagni off for the following language errors. When the report was made umpire Sheehan told Silvagni - "Right that's it SOS - I'll see you at the Tribunral on Monday night, I am reporting you for "strikin" Danny Southern. Linguistic Error 1 The umpire did not address my clients by his correct name, but used a slang alias. He also didn't correctly identify Daniel Southern. There is no AFL footballer legally known as SOS and Daniel Southern has before made it known that he wishes to be known as Daniel, therefore the charge cannot stand. Linguistic Error 2 The umpire used a slang derivative "strikin" instead of the correct English "Striking". Again the incorrect use of language makes the case against my client technically incorrect. Linguistic Error 3 The umpire mis-pronounced Tribunal, there is not second "R" in the word. There is no such thing as a "Tribunral" so again there charge must be thrown out. Linguistic Error 4 The umpire told my client that he would see him on Monday night. The game in question was played on a Sunday so we are here on a Tuesday night. My client was here on Monday night and there was no one in attendance to here the charges so the case should be dismissed. Linguistic Error 5 As a final point my expert would point out the definition of Tribunal as follows: "1. Adjudicative body 2. A court of justice 3. a seat or bench for a judge or judges 4. a place of judgement Hence by definition the tribunal can only judge to determine guilt or innocence they have no power to pass a sentence or penalty. Therefore even if my client is guilty you cannot apply any penalty. I look forward to your pronouncement of the panache of my submission Sincerely, Matt Cronin Dear Coodabeans Trust this entry impresses for your weekly competition: (Note the names have been changed for legal purposes) Dateline: AFL Appeals Board Thursday Night In a shock move tonight "a club" called Miss Chantelle Le Fleur as an expert witness in the the "John Smith" scratching incident from last weeks round. Smith had been given a four week suspension on Monday night as a result of video evidence that showed contact to the neck area of his opponent. Soon after the incident his opponent left the ground with blood streaming from scratches on his neck. Miss Le Fleur who gave her occupation as beauty therapist and manuicurist testified under some pretty severe cross examination from the appeals board that Smith could not have scratched his opponent as he suffered from Suppressed Nail Keratin (SNK) syndrome. Miss Le Fleur testified that SNK sufferers had a weakened nail structure and this caused the fingernail to bend and crack when any force was applied to it. She said that although the condition was rare she had treated several patients/clients suffering from the illness over the years. She stated "It would be impossible for Smith to carry out the alleged offence as this would result in bent and broken finger nails. The only way to stop this occurring would require the application of Nail Hardener or Cuticle Strengthener and both of these materials were on the banned substances list, as performance enhancing drugs". In support of her case video footage of the incident and footage taken at Miss Le Fleur's salon was shown to the appeals board. This showed in close up the stress undergone by the human fingernail when used in a scratching motion. After a short deliberation the appeal board dismissed the appeal and added two weeks to Smith's sentence. Player advocate Ian Finlay was reprimanded for intoducing a novel, expert witness who did nothing to advance the image of the game. Regards Craig Kipping TRIBUNAL EXPERTS
Dear Coodabeens, In regard to this weeks competition on the new type of witness to be brought forward at tribunal hearings l nominate, 'the hypnotist' as the new vital witness for the defence. A major problem for the tribunal judiciary is sorting through the information provided to gain an understanding of the defendants real motives in the passage of play that have lead to his report. Did he have 'means rea'. (Guilty mind). The hypnotist would place the defendant under a hypnotic state and lead him through the events leading up to the incident prompting the charge. The player would state that he was attempting to:
Such clear and convincing evidence would surely have any reported player free to play the following week. Of course the player would of under gone the hypnotic state earlier prior to the tribunal hearing just to check that everything was 'above board'. I enjoy the show. Yours sincerely Doug Hopkins My suggestion for an expert witness is to call in a brain surgeon. After reading of some of the evidence at the tribunal over the years, I believe that only a brain surgeon could tell us exactly what is going in and out of the minds of some of these fine athletes. Regards John Tyrrell Dear Coodabeens Some suggestions for specialists to testify at the AFL tribunal: Psychiatrist - could testify that the accused player is not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, as no sane person could possibly do anything that stupid (as a Kangas supporter I was hoping that Glen Archer would try that one). Neurosurgeon - could testify that the accused player has insufficient brain cells to be able to be held responsible for his actions. FBI Profiler - could testify that having examined the nature of the offence it it is obvious that the profile of the offender does not match the profile of the accused player, so he couldn't possibly be guilty, (despite what the video evidence suggests). Mulder and Scully (X Files) - could testify that the accused player's mind had been temporarily taken over by supernatural forces (or aliens) and therefore he was not guilty. The Devil - could testify that "I made him do it". Thanks for a great program Sue Rathbone Warwick Nolan BABY JOHN BURGESS Baby John would survey 100 ex-players and gather the seven most successful excuses used at the tribunal. The reported player is offered the opportunity to guess one of the appropriate answers to escape a penalty. An Example: Baby John "Did you make contact with your opponent's head?" Player "I was just trying to punch the ball." Tension is milked as the tribunal computer considers the response. Suddenly, a giant hollogram (in the shape of a cross enclosed inside a red square) is superimposed across the players face. A booming DE-DOO echoes through the tribunal' sound system. The player collects a one week suspension. Baby John "Oh bad luck. First strike. All is not lost however. Did your fist make contact with his nose?" Player "The stadium lights got in my eyes." DE-DOO. Two weeks! The expert I would have called to support Glenn Archer would have been Halifax f.p. It is clear that Glenn's head and hand were acting completely in isolation of each other and Halifax (aka Rebecca Gibney) would be the only one who could solve the mystery as to why this out of body experience occured. Michele Blight Dear Coodabeens, My recommendation of a vital expert witness would be that of an Amoebae. There are for good reasons for selecting an Amoebae over other experts.
Paul Hetrelezis(pronounced Hetrel as in "petrol" and ezis as in "S is") |
Home | Competition | Dukes of depth |Guru Bob | Footy songs