Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[attila_the_gorilla]

And you do realise that police forces in the US are locally funded and not stream lined?

And... its the US, not Australia. It is a stupid comment to have made. Court costs dont get paid to coppers or their super funds.

Well I`m glad the expert has cleared that up, like I was asking.

 

[bartman]

That's interesting. Had he allegedly sexually assaulted this girl sober, and denied it, what rubbish would the NRL come up with to suspend him?

There is not place in our game - or the community - for sexual violence against women.

Any player charged as such without alcohol as a factor should also get stood down for bringing the game into disrepute, somehow.

Bit would the whingers and excuse makers stop then? Didn't think so...

 

[adamkungl]

There is not place in our game - or the community - for sexual violence against women.

Any player charged as such without alcohol as a factor should also get stood down for bringing the game into disrepute, somehow.

Bit would the whingers and excuse makers stop then? Didn't think so...

I agree with this - once it is actually proven or admitted that the act happened.

 

[bartman]

How about preventative measures, to stop or reduce the chances of it happening?

 

[t1tan]

I agree with this - once it is actually proven or admitted that the act happened.

So-your saying you dont believe sexual violence happens to women?

 

[Dutchy]

No. He is saying that we shouldn't jump the gun and punish unless the charge turns into a conviction.

 

[bartman]

Prevention (as well as punishment when guilty of a charge) is needed... that's where the NRL's stance in standing down players will become very handy.

Instead of risk time on the sidelines waiting for court, players will think twice about their actions in future, and clubs will make the effort to better educate/mentor/supervise their players. Everybody wins!

 

[adamkungl]

So-your saying you dont believe sexual violence happens to women?

wtf? Bartman said our game has no place for sexual assault. I agreed, as long as it is proven.

 

[El Diablo]

Put it bluntly, cells from your fingers cannot live in the vagina for longer than a couple of hours, if that. Other fluids live much longer, but those type of skin cells die and become untraceable. Much better chance getting fluid underneath fingernails as the protein in those fluids allow DNA and cells to live a lot longer

Stewart's fingernails were tested obviously to obtain DNA hopefully from fluid that went under the nail.

Razor should have checked to see if her hymen was broken

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Razor should have checked to see if her hymen was broken

Haha sorry but that`s too funny.

 

[adamkungl]

Razor should have checked to see if her hymen was broken

:lol:

 

[Kiki]

lolz im loving the amateur sleuths + law experts in this thread.

 

[myanonymoususername]

That's interesting. Had he allegedly sexually assaulted this girl sober, and denied it, what rubbish would the NRL come up with to suspend him?

I'm sure they'd think of something. I think any organisation would seek to remove from their front line anyone charged with serious criminal offences, particularly of a sexual or violent nature.

 

[myanonymoususername]

lolz im loving the amateur sleuths + law experts in this thread.

Its great. And shooting off our mouths without having more than the slightest hint of what actually happened, and the law etc, is great fun :lol:

 

[Timmah]

No. He is saying that we shouldn't jump the gun and punish unless the charge turns into a conviction.

Whether or not he's broken the law, he's still done something wrong.

Razor should have checked to see if her hymen was broken

:lol: GOLD.

 

[Dutchy]

Whether or not he's broken the law, he's still done something wrong.

:lol: GOLD.

Lets presume he is found to be innocent for a second. What has he done wrong?

 

[Cletus]

Whether or not he's broken the law, he's still done something wrong.

:? So drinking too much and going home at 8pm is worth 4 weeks now?

 

[The BigFella]

I am a little confussed at the moment.
24 hrs ago the "experts on here were providing Links to Sexual Assult websites and stating that Sexual Assult must have "penatration" to be correct. Today we have found out that DNA test have come back negative strongly sugesting no "penatration" has occured.
Our experts have told us to read between the lines of all the reports and the truth is there clear as day. Because of the assumption of Penatration.
NOW we are being told by the same people in here that Sexual Assult doesn't require penatration, and it is still obvious that he is "in trouble"
At this stage he is still facing a charge based on an "accusation" of Sexual Assult. But maybe some of his "haters" in here can now admit that there is a distinct possibility that this is an over reaction and a little more innocent that some of you are making out.
He has done some amazingly stupid things in this saga, but he just may not be the monster that some of you are making out.

 

[sportive cupid]

Lets presume he is found to be innocent for a second. What has he done wrong?

People are never found innocent (at least not in real life) They are found to be not guilty beyond reasonable doubt -often through lack of evidence rather than innocence necessarily.

 

[Eels Dude]

lolz im loving the amateur sleuths + law experts in this thread.

I'm loving the fact that Kiki continues to make a complete fool out of herself yet continually assuming everyone is as stupid and ignorant as she is.

I'll wait for the backlash, it's going to be equally amusing and ignorant.