Quote:


No she hasn't.
FD has started a thread saying not to post details of this case as it might go to court and posters here could be sued for what they say.
I hope St Kilda take mellie for what shes got, her unsubstantiated allegations should be enough to get her ass sued and she deserves it. That would shut the lying gimp up.

skippy. wrote on Jan 14^th, 2011 at 10:43am:


This comment is appalling and shows exactly what the problem is here.
Leaving the whole specifics behind of this case one should focus more on the ongoing nature of such allegations against players from both AFL and NRL. Continually there are allegations made against players for misconduct particularly of a sexual nature. The immediate reaction of the clubs and codes is to do damage control and deny everything while discrediting the victim. The public are even worse labeling these victims with all sorts of names and turning on them as if they are the criminal.
The football codes need to stop paying this issue lip service and do something serious about changing the degenerative culture in and around their codes when it comes to the way players treat women. This needs to start at the grass roots club level and not with a media awareness program when you make the top.
I can think of many other cases over the last few years where the outcome has left the victim looking bad and the players continue to receive hugh wages and the fans forgiveness. These players should have been suspended until the situation was sorted and if her babies do belong to one of these players he should be banded for life. I don't care what age these boys are you do not behave in this manner.

ST Kilda chiefs will review their management of the nude photo scandal involving a teenage girl next week.

The Saints have also hired a public relations firm to steer the club through the saga.

It is believed some club insiders are angry at the heavy-handed tactics used against the girl after she published compromising photographs of players on Facebook late last year.

The minor, who claims she became pregnant to a St Kilda player, says all she wants is an apology from the AFL and the St Kilda Football Club.

Club vice-president and lawyer Ross Levin last month said players caught in the saga could seek damages from the 17-year-old beyond her 30th birthday.

"In the event she tries to make money out of this, the misery she has caused to these players, then we'll be looking for that money," he said.

But St Kilda CEO Michael Nettlefold signalled a change in rhetoric after the girl appeared at a training session last week.

"This is clearly a difficult and complex situation. We will continue to explore all options to bring this matter to a close in the most sensitive way possible for all concerned," he said.

The Saints have also hired lawyer Sarah Galbally to fill a new role aimed at tackling off-field issues.

Saints' legend Ian Stewart and South Melbourne great Bob Skilton have both criticised the club for its treatment of the scandal.

And broadcaster Derryn Hinch has questioned whether the players should have faced greater scrutiny.

"If anyone should sue for mental distress surely it should be a girl taken sexual advantage of by grown men ... and tossed aside like a used jockstrap," Hinch said.

warnermi@heraldsun.com.au


Reviewing their management of it, that's a top idea.

I thought they said she already tried to make money out of it. Remember that $20,000 she supposedly asked for.

I'm wondering what options they're exploring? the usual ones perhaps.

It seems the mediations are going well.

saku39 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2011 at 2:19pm:


Nairbe, exactly WHAT did the player do that was a crime???

This whole thing boils down to a couple of guys met a girl, who agreed to have sex with one of them that night (and the other on a different night), the girl became pregnant to someone (which could have been either of them, or neither of them), the guy she was 'dating' (one of the two) dumped her....either for 'infidelity' or because he didn't want responsiblity for a child that might not be his....THAT'S IT....The same thing happens quite regularly in Australia, and has been happening for at least the last 60 years , to my personal knowledge.....and probably a whole lot longer..

NONE of the above mentioned happenings constitute a criminal act under current laws...

codswal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2011 at 4:38pm:


They can't 'prove' paternity now...unless the coroner had the chance to do a DNA test on the fetuses after the miscarriage....which I don't think happened..

Not that it matters all that much...except for the 'record'.....there's still no requirement for child support or any 'financial' payments..

codswal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2011 at 6:10pm:




gizmo you are missing the point...two young men are involved to my knowledge neither has denied that fact.. one of them is innocent of fathering her twins... how can that be proven?.do they have to take her word for it??.. the policman is out on that score.

I am just thinking about the claims she can make that would warrant a payout to her..

the club handled this terrible I dont think there is much doubt on that score.

but these two young men who havent done anything wrong by LAW..we know.. should have to face some penalty and the one that was the father. [I know]..should payout more... otherwise the whole team are getting dragged through the mud.. and that doesnt seem right either. [/quote]

No I didn't 'miss' your point..Of the two guys, neither has 'actually' been identified as the father.., so WHY should either of them have to pay child support for children that do NOT, in fact. exist????

Had the child, or children, been born, that would be a whole other story...but since she didn't carry the pregnancy to term...the point is moot..

And the policeman DID in fact use his 'position of Authority' to extract sexual favours...which IS a crime..

And IF these "two young men who havent done anything wrong by LAW", then WHY should they be punished???

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 15^th, 2011 at 6:36pm:


I highly doubt they will offer her any money unless it is for counselling. I don't think St Kilda could have any confidence that even if she was paid out that it wouldn't be released anyway. In any event if she did release it she would be in contempt of court.

I have no idea what's on the video or if it even exists does anyone? If it involves her having sex or nude etc, it is considered kiddy porn. Although it is legal for her to have sex, if anyone including herself took nude pictures/videos of her then they could be charged with manufacturing and possession of kiddy porn as consent is not relevant factor. The only possible defence I could see would be limited to if they could satisfy a court they reasonably believed she was 18 at the time.

I think it could have been handled better but can also understand why St Kilda took a very strong stand as it appeared nothing they did prior to taking the girl to court and threatening to sue her had the slightest impact on her.

As for why else they would bother with her I really don't think they have any other choice from a PR stand point at the very least. I think one thing that everyone seems to agree on except maybe her is she needs some professional help/counselling.

How funny has this ended up.

She sure sucked in a bunch of gullible folk didn't she. There are a few here that fell for it in a big big way who must be feeling pretty stupid right about now.

Good to see the saga is about done at last.