I haven't read all 1250 posts so apologies if this has already been asked & answered but what is the extent of the independent tribunal's brief? Is it to merely establish what happened & when, then report accordingly to the ARU Board, or is to also recommend what sanction each party should receive? If I were Pulver I'd be going for the latter, on the basis that ARU's best way of emerging from this fiasco with its reputation & finances intact is as follows:
Rather than melodramatically "tearing up" Beale's soon to expire contract for gross misconduct or some such, find his misconduct merely serious (or better yet use old faithful "bringing the game/ organisation into disrepute") & set the penalty at non-renewal of ARU contract. If he sticks around, pulls his head in & plays the house down to the point he demands Wallaby re-selection, Aus rugby wins; if he walks and esp if his hard-core mate(s) also walk on principle, Aus rugby still wins IMO.
Patston appears to be currently on sick leave & is the only person who can possibly claim any kind of victim status. She has to be allowed to return to ARU but clearly can't have any day-to-day contact with the players. Let her do as much of her job as is possible from behind a desk, give her additional duties if need be. If she stays & does her job, ARU wins. If she finds it not chalenging enough & walks I doubt she has much of a case PROVIDED that ARU can show they've given her the support she deserves.
Link IMO is in a similar position to KB (Kurtley Beale) but with the difference that terminating him would be a disaster both PR-wise & financially. Having paid Deans out just 14 months ago (& if rumour be true JON not long prior to that) another golden handshake is surely out of the question. Let him see out his term & if by some miracle the Wobs bring back Bill he's a hero who can choose to stay or go; or if the Wobs crash & burn he can be given the flick on that basis alone & the current mess need never enter into discussion or litigation.
Lastly, I see the media says that Link has "quashed" rumours of an untoward relationship with Patston. Sorry to be pedantic but he's done no such thing. Judges QUASH judgements handed down by other Judges/ juries where they find those judgements to have been flawed. People accused of inappropriate behaviour DENY the rumours and very occasionally provide evidence to REFUTE allegations. Anything else is just them giving their side of the story.