Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[Downie]

Also physical evidence can be destroyed easily enough. Especially in this case. A shower and a drink would destroy most of the physical evidence in this particular case if Stewart didn't leave hair or skin cells on her clothes (which could be easily enough explained away). A person who is the victim of a sexual assault should not shower, wash any part of the body, change clothes or potentially have a drink before a forensic medical examination is conducted.

Which is a pretty unpleasant ordeal in itself.

Stewart went straight to the police station without washing hands or showering. There was no DNA evidence found at all.

 

[El Diablo]

Stewart went straight to the police station without washing hands or showering. There was no DNA evidence found at all.

source

 

[Downie]

source

Journalist at the trial who is posting (unbiased, factual) updates on a Manly forum.

 

[El Diablo]

of course :lol:

 

[Garts]

I thought I read that in a news article but I might very well have got that confused with all the things I have read this week. Anyway, think we will know a verdict by Wednesday.

 

[Talons]

of course :lol:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/no-dna-in-brett-stewar

Will this do ?

 

[Talons]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/no-dna-in-brett-stewar

Will this do ?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...tewarts-sex-case/story-e6frexnr-1225924299032

Sorry about the double post using friends laptop !

 

[El Diablo]

nice link dude

 

[El Diablo]

i know that already

still doesn't say he didn't shower or wash his hands

 

[jc155776]

Hahaha

I love how some clowns on here think real life is like CSI and there is always DNA regardless.

 

[Beachy Eagle]

Imagine a jury made up of some of the anti manly poster from this thread.
Not mentioning any names, but the anti manly and anti stewart sentiment in here is frightening,
I had some boring down time at work today and clicked through a heap of pages in this thread, the funny thing is that there is pages and pages of "digs" and jibes against stewart and manly, but as soon as someone questions the comments being made against stewart we get the standard "quote me" or "show me where i said he was guilty". The answer to that is: what is the dfference between a saying he is guilty and continually implying he is guilty?

Secondly, everyone is on here saying if he is found "not guilty" that doesn't make him innocent and he must be guilty of something.
WTF? why can't some of you grasp that he may be completely innocent.
and I know he may be guilty also before I get shouted down by the death riders.
If he is found guilty then he shall be punshed, and deserves the ridicule that he is and will cop from you all.
If he is found NOT guilty then he deserves the presumption of innocence, but sadly he will still be "judged" again by all of you in here for years to come.

 

[Pete Cash]

He will be considered innocent but people are found not guilty. There is the presumption that guilty people will walk free to keep innocents from prison.

 

[Razor]

You're kidding. Beyond reasonable doubt is pretty damn high, and in the case of sexual assault allegations 'beyond reasonable doubt' is extremely difficult to prove because there just isn't enough evidence. In most cases it's one persons word against the others so using your logic a rapist can walk free based on them giving a false statement. With beyond reasonable doubt it's more likely that happening then being convicted simply based on the victims statement.

So you think if someone says they were raped the court should automatically believe them? When she says "rape", he says "consensual", the man is lying? Or if she says "sexual assault", he says "I never touched her", the man is lying?

It's better if 1,000,000 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person going to jail. Unfortunately that's not the case. The burden of proof required is far to low.

 

[Eels Dude]

So you think if someone says they were raped the court should automatically believe them? When she says "rape", he says "consensual", the man is lying? Or if she says "sexual assault", he says "I never touched her", the man is lying?

It's better if 1,000,000 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person going to jail. Unfortunately that's not the case. The burden of proof required is far to low.

You lost me there. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response :?

 

[Talons]

Hahaha

I love how some clowns on here think real life is like CSI and there is always DNA regardless.

It's not a matter of being a clown, it was a matter of being asked to provide a source.
Seriously though, I work in an industry where I talk with women who have been subjected to abhorrent sexual abuse by men.
Conversely I have spoken to numerous men who have been totally gutted by false accusations by women in regards to allegations of indecent behaviour towards their own children for the benefit of custody and even financial gain.
The thing is if Brett is found not guilty I will not be insulting others who have had differing opinions but will the others have the grace to except the decision of the court, without lowering themselves to snide remarks.

 

[Without_a_Spoon]

:lol:

sounds like your court reporter is as dodgy as f**k

only hearing what he wants to hear

Once again, how stupid are you?
Reporting falsely on court matters, is being in contempt of court. This is a serious criminal matter and the punishment is gaol time. f**k, for someone who seems to pretent to know so much about the system you clearly don't know that muhc. Do you honestly believe a man who is experinenced in the court system would risk this? And you'd be interested to know he is actually more in-depth in those factets which go against Stewart too. He is just simply open, and not sensationalising.

I don't think you quite understand the seriousness of contempt of court, and therefore the reliability of all court reporting.
Some are just more in-depth then others.
A mix of both Manly and news outlet sources has given a pretty clear depiction to anyone who has followed this in-depthly.

I'm not saying this says whether he is guilty or not. I'm just saying you can't question the truthfullness of the reporting.

 

[El Diablo]

oh f**k off

you're a nut

 

[Pete Cash]

I don't believe El Diablo is accusing mr manly court report of making up information. he is accusing him of selectively reporting information. Which is certainly not Sub Judice contempt.

 

[Without_a_Spoon]

oh f**k off

you're a nut

Solid arguement. In other words, you have absolutely nothing. Not gonna lie the fact you in anyway have any power is a disgrace to this site. You've just proven yourself to be an absolute knob jockey.

I don't believe El Diablo is accusing mr manly court report of making up information. he is accusing him of selectively reporting information. Which is certainly not Sub Judice contempt.

Firstly, as I previously stated, don't you think anyone interesterd in the case would also be reading regular media reports on the trial. Thus arresting the potential bias?

In any case, I must say after reading these reports, the Manly reporter has been much more in depth in regards to evidence against Stewart then the papers have been anyway..

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

source

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


``Mr Stewart, as the Crown has said, was taken to the police station,’’ Mr Bellanto said. ``He had not washed his body or his hands. He was in the same state as when the alleged incident occurred.’‘
``There is no evidence of DNA on his fingers,’’ he said.


---------------------------------------------




You're the tool El.