Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[Parraren]

channel 10 always call it that even though they don't know the full details

if it was an AFL player i wouldn't trust 10 to even report it

Oh I get it..

NRL player alleged assault = rape

AFL player alleged assault = very heated argument

 

[butchmcdick]

The latest story with the quotes from the parents mentioned the girl was standing outside near the driveway, so if it happened in the stairwell Stewart either chased her back in (unlikely) or the girl invited Stewart back in. But then there's the parents hearing her scream and not the neighbour, so if it was in a unit block you'd think a lot more people than just the parents would have heard her.

Well case closed then mate.

 

[El Diablo]

Oh I get it..

NRL player alleged assault = rape

AFL player alleged assault = very heated argument

sometimes AFL players names don't even come out AFL star sued for sex assault

 

[Buckshot]

Predictable . Two half wits ( Watmough and Stewart ) railroad the NRL publicity machine at a key moment.

Gallop must be angry as hell.

All we need now is another Carney headline about him getting legless and carrying on like a drunken tool in public . Ohh wait.....

 

[Downie]

Well case closed then mate.

I'm just finding the story very unbelievable. The only way Brett would have done anything inappropriate is if he was on the piss, but considering his diabetes and the steps he takes to cope with, getting wasted isn't something he'd probably do.

 

[butchmcdick]

I'm just finding the story very unbelievable. The only way Brett would have done anything inappropriate is if he was on the piss, but considering his diabetes and the steps he takes to cope with, getting wasted isn't something he'd probably do.

Perhaps he did assault her. Did you think of that ?

 

[Evolution]

Oh I get it..

NRL player alleged assault = rape

AFL player alleged assault = very heated argument

You are all paranoid.

sometimes AFL players names don't even come out AFL star sued for sex assault

That players name did come out at the time. Like all good NRL players he was found 'not guilty';-) after he was not charged due to it being he says, she says.

They are probably more into protecting him now becuase there is legal action against him but at the initial time he was named and the other player was named as well. In this incident one player was wrongfully accused and sued Chanel 7 for defamation I believe.

The player involved is a dog of the highest order who at the time had a girlfriend and two kids with her.

 

[Parraren]

I'm just finding the story very unbelievable. The only way Brett would have done anything inappropriate is if he was on the piss, but considering his diabetes and the steps he takes to cope with, getting wasted isn't something he'd probably do.

It does seem out of character but you never know.

Alcohol is no excuse by the way.

 

[wittyfan]

I don't know what to believe anymore!

 

[Downie]

It does seem out of character but you never know.

Alcohol is no excuse by the way.

I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying it's the only way I can find that Stewart would assault a girl, or be dragged into a situation where it could be deemed as sexual assault. You'd have to be a pretty deranged individual to sexually assault a girl in her own driveway at 8PM and Stewart just doesn't seem anywhere near capable of that.

 

[_Johnsy]

If he is found guilty of the allegations, I hope the NRL taking legal action & sue him for damages re: cost of having the add pulled etc, etc. Fuggin merkin

 

[RainMan]

It was a crap ad anyway...

 

[bartman]

Perhaps he did assault her. Did you think of that ?

Seems to be the last thing anyone thinks of - that an allegation actually might have some substance to it, and that a rugby league player may be at fault for something they've been involved with :crazy:.

Anyway, what the f**k is a 20-something year old rugby league "star" (with a girlfriend that he's been seen and photographed with in public) doing going into a stairwell with a 17 year old neighbour anyway? Dumb f**ker, could only lead to trouble...

And if grog was to blame for that, then what's he doing so maggotted at only 8pm? That's not the grog, that's the choice of person using it. Another dumb act that could only lead to trouble...

 

[_Johnsy]

I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying it's the only way I can find that Stewart would assault a girl, or be dragged into a situation where it could be deemed as sexual assault. You'd have to be a pretty deranged individual to sexually assault a girl in her own driveway at 8PM and Stewart just doesn't seem anywhere near capable of that.

Because......................... :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Obviously you dont know him as well as you think you do, best mates I am sure.

 

[RainMan]

And if grog was to blame for that, then what's he doing so maggotted at only 8pm?

The season launch started at 12pm. 8 hours to get blottoed.

 

[Eagle_Rocker]

If he is found guilty of the allegations, I hope the NRL taking legal action & sue him for damages re: cost of having the add pulled etc, etc. Fuggin merkin

Sounds like you have already found him to be guilty.

 

[wittyfan]

The calm before the storm:

 

[_Johnsy]

Sounds like you have already found him to be guilty.

Have I said that anywhere ? I can answer that for you, No.

My comment related to putting himself in that position after god knows how many similar situations in the past. Complete idiot. Fuggin merkin.

 

[bartman]

The season launch started at 12pm. 8 hours to get blottoed.

Then he is very dumb not to have gotten a taxi straight home, like most sensible people would do after an 8 hour session. Especially those earning a fortune and in the public eye, knowing the risk of sullying the reputation of their employer and industry.

 

[El Diablo]

You are all paranoid.



That players name did come out at the time. Like all good NRL players he was found 'not guilty';-) after he was not charged due to it being he says, she says.

They are probably more into protecting him now becuase there is legal action against him but at the initial time he was named and the other player was named as well. In this incident one player was wrongfully accused and sued Chanel 7 for defamation I believe.

The player involved is a dog of the highest order who at the time had a girlfriend and two kids with her.

this perhaps? http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/16/1079199226161.html