Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[eagles4eva]

You would think considering the fathers past that they have more evidence than just his statement to go to trial. There was DNA testing done too wasnt there? perhaps they found something there.

POLICE are expected to rely on witness accounts in the sexual assault case against Brett Stewart.
Stewart was told yesterday that DNA tests taken from him and the alleged victim - a 17-year-old girl - have not returned a positive match.

source - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/stewart-dna-test-negative/story-e6frfgff-1111119118274

 

[Parra Steve]

ah there you go, wasnt sure if they did find anything or not.

 

[Eels Dude]

Obviously they have the girl's account, her father's account, Stewart's initial statement and following statements. They'd look at any contradictions between any initial statement and any follow up statements on all parties. Any statements made by police arriving on the scene would be highly important. Any other witnesses plus any other medical evidence not neccesarily DNA.

 

[mickdo]

You would think considering the fathers past that they have more evidence than just his statement to go to trial.

They have the victim's statement as well. Victims can be witnesses too.

 

[El Diablo]

alleged victim

 

[Timmah]

There's obviously some sort of case against him for it to have gone to trial...

 

[Slackboy72]

No DNA evidence really puts it up in the he said v she said realm.
This is a criminal trial so it's not the balance of probability that the prosecution needs to meet and that should prove difficult if you can't actually prove anything happened.

 

[eagles4eva]

As long as it doesn’t drag through the system

 

[Shorty]

No DNA evidence really puts it up in the he said v she said realm.
This is a criminal trial so it's not the balance of probability that the prosecution needs to meet and that should prove difficult if you can't actually prove anything happened.

Not if he can't remember.
Cases usually drop after no proof of DNA, don't they?
Sexual assault is very difficult to prove so they must have something pretty special.

 

[Timmah]

As long as it doesn’t drag through the system

Like it has the last 12 and a half months?

 

[The Tank]

snore

 

[eagles4eva]

Like it has the last 12 and a half months?

That's what I mean, its ridicules that he now has a case to answer

 

[El Diablo]

That's what I mean, its ridicules that he now has a case to answer

why?

 

[Ulysseus]

I remember the DNA tests returning nothing because some people were crowing before the tests "oh if theres DAN he is guilty, no doubt about it" and when they came back negative these same people were changing the tune to "that doesn't prove he didn't do anything!"
Like f**k doesn't it, I'll put my money where my mouth is, $500 he is innocent, who wants to match it?

 

[Ulysseus]

They have the victim's statement as well. Victims can be witnesses too.

Yes, and if Stewart chooses to represent himself at any point, then it is him that gets to question the victim...............................................
It is sometimes used to great effect. :sarcasm:

 

[Perth Red]

I presume the NRL will now suspend him pending outcome of the trial?

 

[Ulysseus]

I presume the NRL will now suspend him pending outcome of the trial?

I wouldn't, no matching DNA and a witness that done time for fraud, plus he is entitled to that presumption of innocence.

 

[footy watch]

the only entity that should be suspended or barred is your team from perth.you keep talking it up red,but the results are proving a waste of time.

 

[eagles4eva]

why?

meaning its taken over 12 months for this:

NRL star Brett Stewart has been committed to stand trial over the alleged sexual assault of a 17-year-old neighbour.

Deputy Chief Magistrate Paul Cloran in the Downing Centre Local Court found today that there was enough evidence in the case for a jury to decide Stewart’s guilt or innocence.

So how long will it take to charge or dismiss the charges????

 

[Eels Dude]

I wouldn't, no matching DNA and a witness that done time for fraud, plus he is entitled to that presumption of innocence.

Yet they've still enough evidence to make him stand trial. I don't think it's simply a case of he said/ she said. If that were the case the charges would have been dropped already. The NRL shouldn't step in and stand him down though. Won't achieve anything.