Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[El Diablo]

he can pay for his own legal bills.

and this came out earlier this year with Inglis

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/gardner-blows-gasket-over-harassment-allegations-20100417-slee.html

DRAMAS NOW BEHIND INGLIS

GREG INGLIS stayed with mates on Sunday night - fearful the media might jump him after his address was exposed in the newspapers during the initial frenzy that followed his assault charge. Now that Inglis has put his court drama behind him, expect the corporates to get back behind him. Inglis was close to signing a very lucrative deal with Gatorade - believed to be worth $50,000 - just before he landed in trouble. Inglis was advised by the Storm to use the best lawyer he could afford. His legal bill is said to be in the tens of thousands. It would be unlikely that the Storm could help pay that bill given the salary cap crackdown.

the NRL better be keeping an eye on this seeing initial media reports said Manly hired his QC

 

[Eels Dude]

Mate, by the sounds of things she does not require "painting" as a lunatic as it seems to have been pre-established that she has some mental issues of sorts, the prosecution admitting this does not help their case at all.

As for the legal fees, well it is arguable that it should be counted in the salary cap, if we look beyond this as being a Manly issues that needs to be dealt with by the Manly club alone (with reference to them taking on the DPP) we could view it as a wider indictment on the game when one its draw card stars is falsely accused of such public and disparaging offences.
From my own point of view I would say it should not be as it somewhat represents a landmark case of sorts in RL, along with C.H 2004, at what point should the games players be left out to dry and out of pocket trying to defend accusations that, for all intensive purposes and from what we have been shown so far, have probably not occurred?
Some other employers have arrangements covering their employees legal costs, I know I do, and should those services be required their costs are not deducted from wages.
Given that this does not happen once a month I hardly see the need to include it in the salary cap (which for all intensive purposes is a restriction of trade to a point) nor for the games governing body to make a blanket ruling that would, in the future, preclude players requiring legal advice or representation from receiving it by way of their employers (clubs) paying for it in part or in full.

Does your workplace have a salary cap? If they're paying his legal fees it certainly should be counted. Though I highly doubt they are paying his legal fees?

Regardless of the outcome of this case, the alledged victime is not the one on trial and if Stewart is found not guilty that doesn't mean he's been falsely accused at all. Often in criminal cases it simply means there is not enough evidence for a conviction. This a general statement not related to Stewart, but you can't have a legal system where is someone is found not guilt of sexual assault then we should automatically conclude that the alledged victim is a liar.

 

[^_^]

he can pay for his own legal bills.

and this came out earlier this year with Inglis

It would be unlikely that the Storm could help pay that bill given the salary cap crackdown.


the NRL better be keeping an eye on this seeing initial media reports said Manly hired his QC

Seriously? Your going to use the Storm as the example for following the salary cap rules? haha they where too busy buying Inglis a boat to pay legal fees

 

[Ulysseus]

Does your workplace have a salary cap? If they're paying his legal fees it certainly should be counted. Though I highly doubt they are paying his legal fees?

Regardless of the outcome of this case, the alledged victime is not the one on trial and if Stewart is found not guilty that doesn't mean he's been falsely accused at all. Often in criminal cases it simply means there is not enough evidence for a conviction. This a general statement not related to Stewart, but you can't have a legal system where is someone is found not guilt of sexual assault then we should automatically conclude that the alledged victim is a liar.

Which is unfortunate, maybe if the complainant in this case had the threat of charges relating to perjury hanging over her head this would not have gone to court.
By the same token, you wouldn't want that to cause legitimate victims of assault not to report it, but I don't think this scatterbrained s**t is a legitimate victim, IMHO.

 

[Ulysseus]

Does your workplace have a salary cap?.

No, not many do :sarcasm:

In a larger way this case, whilst being directly about Stewart, is indirectly aimed at the game itself and the perception that many involved in it are serial binge drinkers with little control over their own behavior.
If Manly think he is innocent then so be it, many others do and that should be a fair enough reason to "lawyer him up".

Stewart could pay his own bills, their is a high chance he is, but what if this was some rising star who was still on 50K a year and yet to sign a big deal?
Would we begrudge any club slinging him a SC or similar when their rates are going to eat into that players salary bloody quickly?

 

[Willow]

You should just lock this, if you're going to keep deleting all pro-Brett and anti-Dogs messages. It's getting a bit ridiculous.

The thread will remain open in the interest of free speech, despite your protests or anyone's attempt to post defamatory or unsubstantiated comments.

This includes you Pat.. no one is above the rules.

No mod is deleting posts based on their own viewpoint. We just run a tight ship - this in the best interests of the forums.

Kudos to the mods who are doing a great job to keep an eye on this, and to those members who are assisting the mods to keep this forum online for everyone.

Please feel to report any post that is unsubstantiated or unsourced.

Cheers.

 

[Eels Dude]

No, not many do :sarcasm:

In a larger way this case, whilst being directly about Stewart, is indirectly aimed at the game itself and the perception that many involved in it are serial binge drinkers with little control over their own behavior.
If Manly think he is innocent then so be it, many others do and that should be a fair enough reason to "lawyer him up".

Stewart could pay his own bills, their is a high chance he is, but what if this was some rising star who was still on 50K a year and yet to sign a big deal?
Would we begrudge any club slinging him a SC or similar when their rates are going to eat into that players salary bloody quickly?

Well it's slightly irrelevent... but clubs can't put clauses into player contracts stating that they'll cover legal presidings if the player gets charged with a criminal offence. The same way they can't cover the cost if a 3rd party deal falls through... or they cannot pay for a player's rental car if that player's own car breaks down without it coming under the salary cap. Any financial benefits made to players have to count under the cap, it's pretty simple.

 

[skeepe]

Which is unfortunate, maybe if the complainant in this case had the threat of charges relating to perjury hanging over her head this would not have gone to court.
By the same token, you wouldn't want that to cause legitimate victims of assault not to report it, but I don't think this scatterbrained s**t is a legitimate victim, IMHO.

Jumping to conclusions much? All you know about this case is what you've read in the paper. Personally, I'd wait until more information comes to light instead of making myself look like a chauvinistic caveman.

 

[Eagle_Rocker]

they were never even charged

forget Coffs

Timmah came into this thread making out that Stewart is guilty because the case has come this far. Of course you are going to get a reaction from Manly fans. If it was a canterbury player in the same position I bet he wouldn't be making such insinuations. Maybe he should stick to making game day threads 3 weeks before the game is played.

 

[Eagle_Rocker]

Jumping to conclusions much? All you know about this case is what you've read in the paper. Personally, I'd wait until more information comes to light instead of making myself look like a chauvinistic caveman.

Sure what he said sounded a bit harsh, but he is entitled to his opinion. Most people on here shot Stewart down and branded him guilty ever since it happened before hearing all the facts, so what's the difference? From what we are hearing thus far the alleged victim sounds like a prime candidate for someone who would cry wolf if she got rejected, however that is just my opinion and may not be correct.

I've seen some of the good things Stewart has done in the community and as such I chose to believe he is innocent until such time as he is proven otherwise.

 

[badav]

So with DNA evidence basically exonerating Stewart exactly what is this trial going to boil down to evidence wise?

What are you on about? There is no DNA evidence which in any way exonerates Brett Stewart.

Look up the meaning of that word in the dictionary.

 

[Timmah]

Timmah came into this thread making out that Stewart is guilty because the case has come this far. Of course you are going to get a reaction from Manly fans. If it was a canterbury player in the same position I bet he wouldn't be making such insinuations. Maybe he should stick to making game day threads 3 weeks before the game is played.

Ooh scathing... jibes about game day threads, your arguments must be strong.

As for my accusations, I believe the quotes I made was "there must be some sort of case against him for it to go to trial" or something similar, and "would it really have dragged out this long if he was completely innocent?".

The second one is probably what you're getting at - I think completely is the crunch word in there, I'd speculate (and only speculate) that the truth is possibly that something very minor happened that's only worth a small charge or something? I honestly don't know. Apart from Bird, no other case involving a League player has dragged on this long and this is only the second time I can remember the player being bought to trial in recent memory, it just seems odd that if he was completely innocent that he was charged in the first place and then from there that the charges weren't able to be dismissed before trial.

That said, like the Bird case it sounds like a lot of the evidence will be based on hearsay with a lack of witnesses, so he may very well be completely innocent and the last two years have been a total waste of time.

Only time will tell.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

What are you on about? There is no DNA evidence which in any way exonerates Brett Stewart.

Look up the meaning of that word in the dictionary.

Perhaps not. But considering he is supposed to have inflicted a bruise inside her, did not wash his hands and volunteered for the DNA swab, I think it certainly gives his case a lot of strength. Articles are in the Manly section.

http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.a...d-stewarts-alleged-victim-had-mental-illness/

 

[Timmah]

Perhaps not. But considering he is supposed to have inflicted a bruise inside her, did not wash his hands and volunteered for the DNA swab, I think it certainly gives his case a lot of strength. Articles are in the Manly section.

http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.a...d-stewarts-alleged-victim-had-mental-illness/

The article seems to state differently:

Mr Skinner said the girl felt ``disgusted and shocked’’ and pushed him away.

Mr Skinner also told the jury that the complainant was medically examined at Royal North Shore Hospital about 11.30pm that evening.

He said the jury would hear evidence from the examining doctor that she had an oval- shaped bruise on the back of her left upper arm and a 1cm long and sfr1/2cm wide red area situated at the entrance to her vagina.

Mr Skinner told the jury there would be some medical evidence from a psychiatrist who treated the complainant as a patient.

Nothing there about a bruise inside her.

 

[myanonymoususername]

Some other employers have arrangements covering their employees legal costs, I know I do, and should those services be required their costs are not deducted from wages.

But do they only cover you against being sued for things to do with your job, and not criminal charges? The first I think would be fairly common, the latter not so.

 

[[FKN-SIK]]

Hmmm interesting. Nothing major but still makes sense I think.


http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,27715046-23214,00.html

A teenager has rejected claims she made advances towards Manly fullback Brett Stewart, whom she says sexually assaulted her.
Moments after voicing his repulsion at her cigarette smoking, Stewart allegedly kissed and sexually assaulted the girl outside his North Manly home.

Stewart, 25, is charged with twice indecently assaulting and sexually assaulting the then 17-year-old on March 6, 2009, following Manly's season launch.

He is standing trial in Sydney's Downing Centre District Court, where the complainant, who can't be named for legal reasons, gave evidence by CCTV on Thursday.

Now aged 19, she says she twice pushed away Stewart when he made unwanted advances towards her outside the townhouse complex.

After allegedly kissing her with his tongue, Stewart then allegedly digitally penetrated the teen's vagina, running his hand up the inside of her shorts.

But under cross examination by Stewart's lawyer, Tony Bellanto QC, it was suggested the girl knew who Stewart was and it was she that approached him.

"You tried to move closer to him," Mr Bellanto said to the teenager, adding that she took hold of Stewart by the arm.

She laughed off the claim and said it was untrue.

"He was indicating to you ... that he wanted to go home," Mr Bellanto said.

She denied the claim.

"He never said 'I want to go home', I never tried to keep him there," she said.

The teenager admits that she recognised Stewart from television but didn't know he was a football player.

"I didn't know his name, I didn't know who he was ... he did the wrong thing, he just needs to know that," she said.

The girl had been living at the address with her father and step-mother for about three weeks at the time of the allegations, and was not attending school or working, the jury was told.

Mr Bellanto asked the complainant why Stewart would kiss her after his comments about her smoking.

"He indicated to you very clearly that he didn't approve of smoking? The word you said he used was 'yuck' and he was waving his hand in a demonstration ... to make it very clear that he didn't approve of smoking?" Mr Bellanto asked the complainant.

She answered: "Yes, that's right". "And after that you say he kissed you?" Mr Bellanto continued.

The Complainant replied: "It happened so fast but that's how it happened".

The trial continues before a jury and Judge Jonathan Williams.

 

[Pete Cash]

Which is unfortunate, maybe if the complainant in this case had the threat of charges relating to perjury hanging over her head this would not have gone to court.
By the same token, you wouldn't want that to cause legitimate victims of assault not to report it, but I don't think this scatterbrained s**t is a legitimate victim, IMHO.

Him being found not guilty is not evidence that she lied in court. Don't be foolish. Sexual assault is very difficult to prove the last thing we need is threatening complainants with perjury if the defendant be found not guilty. For the criminal justice system to work there is an amazingly difficult burden of proof. That is fair. What is not fair is to throw out accusations against someone for coming forward. The police, the crown and the justice system all thought there was enough evidence to make a case. If it was just spurious nonsense it would not have got past the police.

 

[nibbs]

i hope he is guilty

 

[innsaneink]

I hope he is found guilty if he is guilty.
If he is innocent, I hope the girl is charged, though I doubt it

 

[Eels Dude]

I hope he is found guilty if he is guilty.
If he is innocent, I hope the girl is charged, though I doubt it

No-one is found 'innocent', just 'not guilty' as it comes down to burden of proof. Unless what she says in court majorly contradicts what she said earlier then she can't be charged with perjury.