Riiiiiggght….
The best news from this is that he won’t be commentating next year!
3 Likes
We wish to announce that Nathan Buckley is the new Victorian Regional manager of Cotton On
6 Likes
Smart move by Buckley imo.
It’s clear that he wants the Tassie coaching job and he is getting reacclimated to coaching in the modern game.
4 Likes
FTFY
Question I have re Buckley. How didn’t anyone in the media scoop this move? How was it planned so privately and not get out? I assume all the media are so distracted by trade week they took their eye if this story.
It probably was a result of King getting the Demons job and then Scarlett going to Demons so a job opportunity opened up at Cattery.
Two more questions after watching Buckley on Fox tonight. Is he going there to help them win a flag? Or is he going there to steal as much IP as possible?
2 Likes
Stepping stone for the Tassie gig. They will want a coach freshly involved in the game. If he can pinch a few ideas and perhaps staff and/or players that’s a bonus
1 Like
The later
Good questions. He’s an asset no doubt. However there’s risks!
Tom Stewart’s concussion was a serious one, this article is frightening in some aspects.
2 Likes
Charges against bruhn dropped.
Witness admitted to lying.
Sheesh.
So Tanner Bruhn has recovered from his reported finger injury.
4 Likes
Witness now has lots ofCotton On shares?
Edited transcript taken from the herald sun
XX = Alleged victim
HR = Hayden Rattray (lawyer for Bruhn)
HM = Harrison Martin (witness)
HR: XX has told you previously that she lied to the police about the rape allegations hasn’t she?
HM: From my memory, yes.
HR: The second thing you say to the police officer yesterday is ‘I lied in my statement to police about the statement’.
HM: Yes.
HR: When in the course of the discussion (with XX) does XX admit to you that she’s lied to the police?
HM: Yes.
HR: When?
HM: I don’t remember exactly but it was either that during when we were trying to jog my memory or sometime after.
HR: But certainly before you make your statement?
HM: Definitely before I make my statement.
HW: OK, so XX tells you she lies about the rape allegation, correct?
HM: That’s correct.
HR: Just to be clear, paragraph 19 (of the witness statement) reads “They (co-accused) were being a bit combative to the bouncers (at the strip club). They were saying they had money to spend and wanted to be let in”. That’s false?
HM: That’s false.
HR: Did XX tell you to say that?
**HM:**I don’t remember, honestly. It wouldn’t surprise me if something was said (by XX) there.
HR: Why would that not surprise you?
HM: It’s just that I have no memory of the two accused even being there in the first place, let alone the night. It would not surprise me if that was said to me (by XX). As in, whatever’s happened, you know, once they have gone off in the car that has obviously upset her. And in a way, it’s her (XX) way of going, well if you say this, it’s going to seem like, you know, they (co-accused) wanted something more.
HR: That is XX suggesting if you tell a particular version of events it will render or make or likely her false rape allegation?
HM: That’s correct.
HR: In relation to paragraphs 27, 28 and 29, this is the portion of your statement where you, in essence, make an allegation that you were assaulted by one of the males?
HM: Yes.
HR: Is it your best memory that XX told you that she saw that?
HM: Yes.
HR: So XX actually told you that you had been the victim of an assault?
HM: That’s correct
HR: By one of the men who subsequently (allegedly) assaulted her?
HM: Yes.
HR: Do you appreciate that that’s utterly false?
HM: Yes, I do understand that.
HR: It just simply could not have happened.
HM: Yes.
HR: Coming back to paragraphs 33 and 34, this is another example of a portion of your statement that is not the product of your memory?
**HM:**Yep.
HR: And it is the product of what XX told you to say?
HM: Yes.
HR: I’ll read paragraphs 33 and 34. “When I was outside XX’s house, her phone answered and one of the (co-accused) guys basically told me to f— off and that they were having fun. I could hear XX saying “Help, I’m in trouble”. Paragraph 34 (reads). “That’s exactly what she said. The phone call didn’t even last 10 seconds. It was maybe around 3.30am or 4am. I don’t have the call record anymore.” Paragraphs 33 and 34 are simply untrue aren’t they?
HM: They are, yes.
HR: You tell the police in a sworn statement “I could hear XX saying ‘Help, I’m in trouble’. That is exactly what she said”?
HM: Yes.
HR: Extremely important evidence in a rape trial. Do you understand that?
HM: Yes, I do.
HR: And it’s a lie?
HM: Yes.
HR: And the most likely explanation for that lie is because XX told you to tell it?
HM: Yes.
4 Likes