Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[Eels Dude]

Thanks for that.
Would you know when all evidence would be provided to the defence?

I'm not really sure. What will probably happen in a month's time is when Stewart has his initial hearing he'll have an oppurtunity to plead guilty or not guilty, the magistrate will look at the statements and evidence and determine whether the prosecution has a case or whether the charges are dismissed. If there is a case, it won't be heard again for probably at least another few months. That's when Stewart and his lawyers can sum up the evidence against him and build up a case in his defence.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Well terminalogy aside, it's highly unlikely the DPP are going to drop charges unless witnesses change their statements. Especially before the upcoming initial hearing.

the point i was trying to make is that it can be dropped before the prelim hearing.

and i dont know how you would know the DPP may drop the charges only if the witnesses change their statements, considering you have no knowledge of these statements. It is not unusual for someone higher up in the DPP to drop charges if they feel there is little chance of a conviction.

people are charged in sexual assault cases without any witnesses at all ( see lafranchi for that

Police also often whinge about the DPP dropping charges that they felt should be convicted

 

[[furrycat]]

More confusion
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/nrl/story/0,27074,25176491-14823,00.html
The police are proceeding.

http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2009/03/12/Brett_Stewart_DNA_tests_come_in_negative

The police wouldn't comment.

Police sources told The Australian the case was going ahead.
“We believe we have enough physical evidence and eyewitness reports to proceed with the case against Mr Stewart.''

From the article you quoted.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Police want as many convictions as they can, guilty or not. I`m not 100% sure about this but my impression is that the police have financial interest in securing convictions. Can anybody clarify this?

 

[herbert henry1908]

one thing to remember is , just becuase there are witness statements doesnt mean they witnessed the alleged assault. They may only support a series of events as described by the alleged victim.

 

[sneagle]

From the article you quoted.

That's what I was finding confusing - a quote from one and a refusal to comment in the other as the case was before the courts....

Hopefully more will come to light soon.

 

[Eels Dude]

the point i was trying to make is that it can be dropped before the prelim hearing.

and i dont know how you would know the DPP may drop the charges only if the witnesses change their statements, considering you have no knowledge of these statements. It is not unusual for someone higher up in the DPP to drop charges if they feel there is little chance of a conviction.

people are charged in sexual assault cases without any witnesses at all ( see lafranchi for that

Police also often whinge about the DPP dropping charges that they felt should be convicted

I don't know that. I said it was highly unlikely. It can be dropped of course, however given how quickly charges were laid and a non reliance of DNA evidence I would think it would continue to the initial hearing. Only time will tell, but from what we know I cannot see why a DPP would drop the charges unless there was a definate conflict of evidence or statements.

 

[El Diablo]

Police want as many convictions as they can, guilty or not. I`m not 100% sure about this but my impression is that the police have financial interest in securing convictions. Can anybody clarify this?

the police take their case to the DPP and they decide whether or not they can get a conviction or if its not worth it due to lack of evidence afaik

 

[[furrycat]]

the police take their case to the DPP and they decide whether or not it will go to court afaik

The DPP does not "decide" - he makes a recommendation to the police who make the final call.

 

[[furrycat]]

Police want as many convictions as they can, guilty or not. I`m not 100% sure about this but my impression is that the police have financial interest in securing convictions. Can anybody clarify this?

Extremely stupid and very narrow minded comment. Not the case.

 

[brook]

I would have thought that they would take a vaginal swab as well, cos even digital penetration would very likely leave your DNA there.

I really don't think it works like that anywhere except on badly written tv crime shows...

 

[Eels Dude]

Police want as many convictions as they can, guilty or not. I`m not 100% sure about this but my impression is that the police have financial interest in securing convictions. Can anybody clarify this?

It's their job to investigate and lay charges in relation to them if need by. The DPP, the prosecution's job is to convict that person, the same way a defence attorney's job is to get the best possible deal for their client. That's the legal system. The prosecution do not personally care whether a person is guilty or not, it's just their job to do that. Whereas as a defence attorney doesn't give a stuff about whether their client is guilty or not guilty, it's just about getting them off or finding the best case scenario available for them.

 

[[furrycat]]

I don`t know historical statistics, it`s just common sense. And I`m not talking about sexual assault in general, but the kind of sexual assault (digital penetration) which seems to be the charge here.

... what?

Where has the charge of digital penetration been added (source)? Where have you pulled that one from?

... and vaginal swab? Stop watching CSI. Rape testing kits are far more sophisticated in testing

 

[adamkungl]

your ignoring the fact that the NRL themselves didnt stand him down for the charges. If they did it would have infringed on his right to the presumption of innocence.

as we discussed earlier if Stewart ( or someone else in the future) had of been sober how would have they stood him down?

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?

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

... what?

Where has the charge of digital penetration been added (source)? Where have you pulled that one from?

... and vaginal swab? Stop watching CSI. Rape testing kits are far more sophisticated in testing

I said `apparently`. Because the DNA samples were taken from the girl`s mouth and Stewart`s fingers.

Not sure what your problem is with vaginal swabs. Every single cell of your body contains your DNA. That includes the skin on your fingers.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Extremely stupid and very narrow minded comment. Not the case.

How do you know? I`ve heard of cases in the US where parts of the court costs paid by the accused after the guilty verdict officially went to the retirement funds of that state`s police force.

 

[sneagle]

... what?

Where has the charge of digital penetration been added (source)? Where have you pulled that one from?

... and vaginal swab? Stop watching CSI. Rape testing kits are far more sophisticated in testing

Digital penetration
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,,25169627-23209,00.html

Apparantly it was mentioned also in The Australian but the link I tried was broken.
Ok found it:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25170055-2722,00.html

 

[[furrycat]]

How do you know? I`ve heard of cases in the US where parts of the court costs paid by the accused after the guilty verdict officially went to the retirement funds of that state`s police force.

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.

 

[[furrycat]]

I said `apparently`. Because the DNA samples were taken from the girl`s mouth and Stewart`s fingers.

Not sure what your problem is with vaginal swabs. Every single cell of your body contains your DNA. That includes the skin on your fingers.

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.

 

[Parra]

[furrycat] - let me get this straight. You believe that DNA can only be obtained from living cells. And that these cells live separate from your body, for a period of time, based on what part of your body they come from. Is that it?