Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[bartman]

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.

Hmmm, a lot of the discussion - especially about whether the NRL was right to stand him down while his charges are resolved - have nothing to do with "hating" or with whether he is eventually innocent or guilty.

But some people seem to confuse having an opinion about what the NRL is doing being good for the game, with hating Stewart or deciding he's already guilty...? Guess there's no getting through to some people.

 

[bartman]

*double post*

 

[The BigFella]

Bartman, I am not talking about the "standing Down", I was OK with it either way.
I am talking about the Presumption of guilt based on the fact that Sexual Assult is based around "penatration". The DNA suggests that there may have been no penetration, and now we are being told that Sexual Assult doesn't need Penetration, and covers things like gropping ect. (which anyone with a clue knows under the ammended laws is incorrect).
He has been stood down OK, manly made a decsion to support thier player who had claimed his innocence, I am also OK with that.
I am however disapointed that "league supporters" are so quick to hang one of thier own out to dry and be perpared to call him an animal ect.
Based on a wide range on manufactured stories in the media.
He HAS done something, but it si looking mre and more likely it is a whole different kettle of fish to the horrible things some in here are trying to suggest.

 

[Eels Dude]

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.

Not quite. Sexual assault may require penetration from what has been presented by those who've provided the legislation. However, penetration does not specifically have to come from a 'penis' as such. Unless it is, and reports are any sexual assault that occured was a 'digital' penetration in this case, then the chances of obtaining positive DNA samples are going to be very slim. Hell, you could sexually assault someone with a laundrey marker and it wouldn't leave any DNA evidence. Furry Cat, I think it was, explained it a couple of pages back on this thread.

 

[Timmah]

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

Consumed excessive amounts of alcohol occassioning him to be in a position where he was charged with an alleged crime. To put yourself in that position means you've not had your head screwed on.

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

Nice try at simplify what really isn't the right thing for a footy player to do, after a season launch, a week before kickoff, two days after being anointed the face of the entire competitions advertising. The impact of this whole thing is far greater than just the Manly club and I think that's something some of you might not understand.

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.

The DNA tests were conducted on fingernail scrapings and saliva swabs. That doesn't rule out penetration tbh.

 

[TimmyB]

I've not studied evidence, so I don't know how big of a deal the failure to find her DNA under his finger nails is. Intuitively though, you'd have to say it's going to raise a lot of doubt in the jurors' mind as to whether it's happened.

It's probably important to note that attempted sexual assault is treated as sexual assault under the legislation. That is, if Stewart attempted to penetrate and failed, he could still be found guilty under the same section as if he succeeded.

 

[The BigFella]

Forget the DNA tests on HER they were mouth swabs only. The facts are they were trying to find HER on HIM. The belief is that if Digital Penatration had occured the DNA would almost certainly still be there under the Fingernail even after 24hrs.
THe DNA obtained from fingernails is quite often the backbone of alot of charges. This outcome while doesn't as yet prove his complete innocence, it certainly starts to swing the presumptions in another direction.
I was happy to accept the NRL decision to stand him down, and happy to accept Manly's decision to support one of thier player in his hour of need, and after pleeding his innocence.
I am suprises that so many league fans are prepared to hang out to dry "one of thier own" irrespective of who they play for. But yey are screaming from the highest roof top about wanting what is best for the game. Is it not in the best interest of the game to offer one of its brightest the support of believing his plea of innocence, until it is, if ever proven as false?

 

[Dutchy]

Forget the DNA tests on HER they were mouth swabs only. The facts are they were trying to find HER on HIM. The belief is that if Digital Penatration had occured the DNA would almost certainly still be there under the Fingernail even after 24hrs.
THe DNA obtained from fingernails is quite often the backbone of alot of charges. This outcome while doesn't as yet prove his complete innocence, it certainly starts to swing the presumptions in another direction.
I was happy to accept the NRL decision to stand him down, and happy to accept Manly's decision to support one of thier player in his hour of need, and after pleeding his innocence.
I am suprises that so many league fans are prepared to hang out to dry "one of thier own" irrespective of who they play for. But yey are screaming from the highest roof top about wanting what is best for the game. Is it not in the best interest of the game to offer one of its brightest the support of believing his plea of innocence, until it is, if ever proven as false?

 

[Miller was a legend]

This is nearly as entertaining as the legal eagles in here were over Bird. Keep it up, worth a giggle. IMO f**k Stewart, stood down for being drunk at an official club function, well good. If the NRL had taken this kind of stand a year earlier, Bird may have stood a fraction of a chance of having been sacked before the incident with his girlfriend and the NRL would have saved us all the bad press for the game.

Did Stewart sexually assualt the girl? farked if I know I wasn't there, but until he has his day in court, he deserved the presumtion of being innocent, as did / does Bird.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

This is nearly as entertaining as the legal eagles in here were over Bird. Keep it up, worth a giggle. IMO f**k Stewart, stood down for being drunk at an official club function, well good. If the NRL had taken this kind of stand a year earlier, Bird may have stood a fraction of a chance of having been sacked before the incident with his girlfriend and the NRL would have saved us all the bad press for the game.

Did Stewart sexually assualt the girl? farked if I know I wasn't there, but until he has his day in court, he deserved the presumtion of being innocent, as did / does Bird.

If we use this as a precedent, people that are refused bail are still innocent till proven guilty... how would a player play from Long Bay. while awaiting trial..

 

[Timmah]

I am suprises that so many league fans are prepared to hang out to dry "one of thier own" irrespective of who they play for. But yey are screaming from the highest roof top about wanting what is best for the game. Is it not in the best interest of the game to offer one of its brightest the support of believing his plea of innocence, until it is, if ever proven as false?

The best interests of the game is for blokes like Stewart and Watmough to not get so drunk they end up in trouble with either other people or the law. No player is bigger than the Manly club nor the game itself and that's what this is about.

And for the record, I believe Watmough should also be slapped with a suspension but that's JMO.

 

[bartman]

Bartman, I am not talking about the "standing Down", I was OK with it either way.
I am talking about the Presumption of guilt based on the fact that Sexual Assult is based around "penatration".

OK. But no-one's saying he's guilty in this thread that I can see. People are just discussing what sexual assault legally means, to try and understand what's going on.

The DNA suggests that there may have been no penetration, and now we are being told that Sexual Assult doesn't need Penetration, and covers things like gropping ect. (which anyone with a clue knows under the ammended laws is incorrect).

Agree. I must've skipped through the posts where people are claiming that... the DNA test doesn't provide DNA evidence of penetration, but there are many factors in those tests, and the lack of DNA isn't enough itself to rule anything out - it just doesn't automatically rule it in.

He has been stood down OK, manly made a decsion to support thier player who had claimed his innocence, I am also OK with that.
I am however disapointed that "league supporters" are so quick to hang one of thier own out to dry and be perpared to call him an animal ect.

I must've missed those posts, so I didn't know what you were getting at. I think the worst posts I've read have included things like "if he has done this" or "if it has happened". I don't see many people here hanging him out to dry. He should have known better than to go on a bender at this point in the season, that much is for sure.

Based on a wide range on manufactured stories in the media.
He HAS done something, but it si looking mre and more likely it is a whole different kettle of fish to the horrible things some in here are trying to suggest.

Again, I think the discussion of what sexual assault actually means helped clear up the range of what can be included under that heading (from full blown rape to oral/digital), when people were mistakenly thinking it had to be full blown rape. If anything the discussion about digital penetration, prompted by the media source, lessened the belief in the perhaps more horrible things that were on the horizon under the charge that has been laid.

 

[sneagle]

Forget the DNA tests on HER they were mouth swabs only. The facts are they were trying to find HER on HIM. The belief is that if Digital Penatration had occured the DNA would almost certainly still be there under the Fingernail even after 24hrs.
THe DNA obtained from fingernails is quite often the backbone of alot of charges. This outcome while doesn't as yet prove his complete innocence, it certainly starts to swing the presumptions in another direction.
I was happy to accept the NRL decision to stand him down, and happy to accept Manly's decision to support one of thier player in his hour of need, and after pleeding his innocence.
I am suprises that so many league fans are prepared to hang out to dry "one of thier own" irrespective of who they play for. But yey are screaming from the highest roof top about wanting what is best for the game. Is it not in the best interest of the game to offer one of its brightest the support of believing his plea of innocence, until it is, if ever proven as false?

Sorry but I do not think it was just mouth swabs - they also tried to find DNA evidence of HIM on HER - no evidence.

 

[sneagle]

This probably sounds awful - but have the family moved now? ( they have been immediately moving now since Saturday?)

 

[Timmah]

I don't know, nor do I care, and I don't think we should speculate on the alleged victim's circumstances tbh. Allow her the privacy she deserves for now.

 

[TimmyB]

I don't think it's out of the question that there are some posters here that might have a degree of knowledge about the law or who work in the industyr. THere's bound to be plenty of coppers and lawyers in here...

 

[perverse]

I don't think it's out of the question that there are some posters here that might have a degree of knowledge about the law or who work in the industyr. THere's bound to be plenty of coppers and lawyers in here...

i can confirm there's at least one.

 

[sneagle]

I don't think it's out of the question that there are some posters here that might have a degree of knowledge about the law or who work in the industyr. THere's bound to be plenty of coppers and lawyers in here...

Have to ask what is the difference between "no evidence" & "inconclusive"?

 

[effnic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUWgDppzMWQ

 

[perverse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUWgDppzMWQ

rofl.