Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[HevyDevy]

If the case unravels there isnt the evidence to support the charge. Hardly a technicality.

I'm hoping there is sufficient evidence for him to be found not guilty, rather than insufficient evidence to be found guilty.

 

[t1tan]

I'm hoping there is sufficient evidence for him to be found not guilty, rather than insufficient evidence to be found guilty.

True,there will always be the inference he may be guilty if inconclusive..

 

[Eels Dude]

the reports of witnesses is interesting.

without DNA wouldnt they need a direct witness to the alleged sexual assault ( rather than just the alleged scuffle afterwards) to prove the charge?

I would have thought proving penetration would be essential to any sexual assault charge.

It would also depend on Stewart's version of events. Which we don't know. If his statement and testifying is inconsistent with all the other witness's statements then that certainly doesn't benefit him. He has to present a coherant honest description of what events actually to the court otherwise his word will not count for much.

 

[^_^]

POLICE DNA tests have returned no evidence to support a sexual assault charge against Manly fullback Brett Stewart.

This is from the Daily Telegraph.

 

[MANLYMAGIC08]

Only Manly fans want the case to unravel.

The rest of us hope that it is fully investigated and that he is found innocent.

It doesn't help anyone if he gets off on a 'technicality' or because someone f**ks up.

Lets get this straight, if he's guilty of sexual assault and proven so, I agree he should be automatically deregistered, never to play rugby league again and he should receive the same punishment as anyone else in Australia.

If he's innocent and proven so, he should be free to continue his normal life without vilification.

I am not in support of getting off on a technicality.

I fully hope he is found innocent as with any other fan of the game!

 

[Cletus]

Because that's how it works. From indications the girl in question did not attend the police station on the night but spoke to police at the scene before going in to make a formal statement the following evening. She would not have been DNA tested until then. Similarly, Brett Stewart would not have been arrested by police until hours after the alledged attack and may have not provided a DNA testing that night either, especially he deferred making a statement.

You would bother a day later because it makes sense legally and even though chances are any DNA remains would be gone, there is still the slight chance that they would remain and tests would be taken out regardless.

She went to RNS that night and he went to Dee Why cop shop that night.

Despite not yet having the results of DNA testing Stewart submitted to at Dee Why Police Station in the early hours of Saturday morning, there was considered to be sufficient evidence to charge him.
The teenager who made the complaint also provided a DNA sample and was examined by a doctor at Royal North Shore Hospital after claiming she had been sexually assaulted by Stuart about 8pm on Friday night. It took just five minutes from the time of the first telephone call to the Emergency 000 hotline at 8.01pm to when police officers arrived on scene at North Manly on Friday night.

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/diabetes-defence-for-stewart/2009/03/10/1236447217385.html

And I doubt the police let him wash his hands.

 

[herbert henry1908]

I'm hoping there is sufficient evidence for him to be found not guilty, rather than insufficient evidence to be found guilty.

The burden of proof is on the DPP.

Stewart and his defence team shouldnt have to prove he didnt do it in order to be found not guilty.

 

[sneagle]

Because that's how it works. From indications the girl in question did not attend the police station on the night but spoke to police at the scene before going in to make a formal statement the following evening. She would not have been DNA tested until then. Similarly, Brett Stewart would not have been arrested by police until hours after the alledged attack and may have not provided a DNA testing that night either, especially he deferred making a statement.

You would bother a day later because it makes sense legally and even though chances are any DNA remains would be gone, there is still the slight chance that they would remain and tests would be taken out regardless.

I thought the girl was taken to the hospital prior to the police station and Stewart was arrested at the scene.
Trying to check that - but you would think that if a sexual assault was reported the evidence would be collected a.s.a.p especially from the victim.

The girl went to The Royal North Shore Hospital for treatment.

 

[HevyDevy]

The burden of proof is on the DPP.

Stewart and his defence team shouldnt have to prove he didnt do it in order to be found not guilty.

I'm aware of that, but what would you prefer?

 

[MANLYMAGIC08]

Because that's how it works. From indications the girl in question did not attend the police station on the night but spoke to police at the scene before going in to make a formal statement the following evening. She would not have been DNA tested until then. Similarly, Brett Stewart would not have been arrested by police until hours after the alledged attack and may have not provided a DNA testing that night either, especially he deferred making a statement.

You would bother a day later because it makes sense legally and even though chances are any DNA remains would be gone, there is still the slight chance that they would remain and tests would be taken out regardless.

Yeah.. I don't think you're right with all those facts mate.

 

[t1tan]

She went to RNS that night and he went to Dee Why cop shop that night.



http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/diabetes-defence-for-stewart/2009/03/10/1236447217385.html

And I doubt the police let him wash his hands.

So,the medical examination was enough to prove there was some evidence to support her claim?

 

[adamkungl]

Bartman is probably the ONLY sane member of this forum......apart from myself of course *cough* and he's also unbiased and fair unlike the majority on here.

Unfortunately for you some of us still believe in the presumption of innocence. And oh look, the DNA test was negative.

 

[Dutchy]

So,the medical examination was enough to prove there was some evidence to support her claim?

Like a bump on the head or something? Stewart was that drunk, possibly fell over on her? She was helping him to the door?

We don't know, its sucks, but we have to wait.

 

[MANLYMAGIC08]

So,the medical examination was enough to prove there was some evidence to support her claim?

Haven't heard anyone say that.. have you?

 

[bartman]

Unfortunately for you some of us still believe in the presumption of innocence. And oh look, the DNA test was negative.

You seem to singlehandly fail to see that the issue of the presumption of innocence, and a player being stood down (on full pay) while charges are resolved are two entirely different things... If he was not presumed innocent, he would have been sacked outright.

 

[t1tan]

Haven't heard anyone say that.. have you?

Thats what im asking..try and keep up

 

[herbert henry1908]

I'm aware of that, but what would you prefer?

If the DPP felt there wasnt enough evidence to prove the charge i would prefer it dropped.

However if they feel there is enough it should be prosecuted.

Im prepared to leave it in the experts hands , i certainly wouldnt want a trial just so we as rugby league supporters can feel better about him being proven not guilty. The emotions ( and mental health) of many people involved are much more important than the image of rugby league.

 

[gong_eagle]

It looks as if it could end up a 'he says - she says' type thing. I thought the only 'witnesses' were the father and mother, oh and little sister...

weren't parents and sister in the unit and they only came out when they heard a scream, Maybe the only witness is the person that had the webcam ready to record at the right time

 

[fourplay]

Any decent lawyer will shoot holes in the fathers credibility as a witness.

Especially with his criminal history being a convicted fraudster.

 

[Eels Dude]

She went to RNS that night and he went to Dee Why cop shop that night.



http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/diabetes-defence-for-stewart/2009/03/10/1236447217385.html

And I doubt the police let him wash his hands.

There's far too many conflicting reports out there to conclusively know the order of events for friday night and saturday morning. If he was taken into custody early saturday morning that's at least 4 hours after the alledged incident occured.

That article may be correct timewise however a lack of DNA confirmation means very little in the scheme of things. DNA is not a permanent marker and unless tested immediately and thoroughly, it's more often than not that tests will come back inconclusive. If a victim is full on raped and the alledged perpetrator completes the act then it's a bit different, but from the information we are talking about here not having a matching DNA result would not be unusual.