Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[innsaneink]

No-one is found 'innocent', just 'not guilty' as it comes down to burden of proof. Unless what she says in court majorly contradicts what she said earlier then she can't be charged with perjury.

Thanks perry mason.
As I said, if he's innocent (of the charges) etc etc

 

[Pete Cash]

The girl would have the exact same burden of proof if she was charged and she would be found not guilty based on he said she said. I actually would guarantee that Stewart wouldn't testify against her anyway but it would be exactly like this case but reversed.

 

[Eels Dude]

The girl would have the exact same burden of proof if she was charged and she would be found not guilty based on he said she said. I actually would guarantee that Stewart wouldn't testify against her anyway but it would be exactly like this case but reversed.

And to further on, if she was found not guilty of perjury does that mean she was telling the truth and Stuart was guilty? Absolutely not.

 

[Pete Cash]

There is the perception that its very easy to have someone falsely convicted of sexual assault. It is actually difficult for the crown to make a sexual assault case at the best of times never mind one that was invented.

I have sympathy for anyone falsely accused of a crime, but charging claimants if the crown can't make a case is simply geniused.

The defendant is innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise. This means that a lot of guilty people will walk free. It isn't justice but it is fair. Brett Stewart as it stands right now is innocent of all crimes he has been charged with. Apply the same standard of proof to the girls story. Prove that she is a liar. That is what any action against her would require.

 

[dontbro]

After perusing the dialogue and statements on this topic, I would have to assert that Pete Cash is one of a few that are making sense.

Some people are saying that IF Stewart is found not guilty then this necessary leads to the conclusion that the complainant is lying and should be charged with perjury. The illogicality of this shouldn't need to be explained but reading some statements here makes me believe a lot of posters don't have close female relatives.

If my (or your) sister, god forbid, was sexually assaulted at a party in a dark room with absolutely no witnesses, and she then makes a complaint to the police, and assuming this case gets past the committal stage, and the the rapist is put on trial, it would be far-fetched to believe that a jury would find the rapist guilty on the basis on her evidence against his. Therefore a rapist walks free and justice is not served for your sister or family.

Do you really think the logical next step of the criminal justice system is to charge your sister with making a false claim or perjury merely because her attacker was not proved to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

I would say if the prosecution can prove that Steward did, in fact, penetrate her vagina, then the issue of whether he did this intentionally or recklessly is almost inescapable and he is guilty. I doubt the jury would convict though.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

The thread will remain open in the interest of free speech, despite your protests or anyone's attempt to post defamatory or unsubstantiated comments.

This includes you Pat.. no one is above the rules.

No mod is deleting posts based on their own viewpoint. We just run a tight ship - this in the best interests of the forums.

Kudos to the mods who are doing a great job to keep an eye on this, and to those members who are assisting the mods to keep this forum online for everyone.

Please feel to report any post that is unsubstantiated or unsourced.

Cheers.

Not 100% accurate. My post contained my opinion only yet was deleted. Being careful is understandable and necessary. Over zealousness isnt.

 

[El Diablo]

Not 100% accurate. My post contained my opinion only yet was deleted. Being careful is understandable and necessary. Over zealousness isnt.

full of sh*t

it contained the word "we" and also had some very serioius allegations that were unsubstantiated and incorrrect

 

[Kilkenny]

Brett Stewart is not on trial here the alleged victim is on trial.

 

[Timmah]

:?

Brett Stewart stands charged with a crime, no amount of sentiment will change that.

 

[Eagle_Rocker]

:?

Brett Stewart stands charged with a crime, no amount of sentiment will change that.

??? Thanks for the update.

Believe it or not, people are sometimes charged and made to stand trial when they are completely innocent. I have been reading updates from someone that has been attending the trial, and have been getting much more information than is being reported in the media. I don't know what can be posted on this site, but I will deadset be stunned if what she is saying is in fact what happened.

 

[CliffyIsGod]

:?

Brett Stewart stands charged with a crime, no amount of sentiment will change that.

You really are stupid.

 

[LazyDreamer]

IMHO, the biggest 'WTF' to come out of the trial so far...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/brett-stewarts-tears-flow-at-tribute/story-e6frexnr-1225925595939

NRL star Brett Stewart broke down in court at his sexual assault trial yesterday as he listened to a Sea Eagles staff member give evidence that the footballer would "never, ever disrespect a woman".

Elizabeth Marin, a performance analyst with the Manly club, told the District Court she was with Stewart throughout the day on March 6 last year, shortly before he allegedly assaulted a teenage girl.

Ms Marin said Stewart was in full control of his faculties and not drunk, as the 17-year-old complainant and her family has alleged.

Stewart denies indecently and sexually assaulting the girl as he arrived home to his North Manly home about 7pm that evening.

Ms Marin became tearful when she spoke of how Stewart had been chosen as the face of rugby league before the incident.

"He is well regarded by everyone and well respected," she said.

Asked by Stewart's barrister, Tony Bellanto QC, if she found the allegations out of character, Ms Marin replied: "Definitely. I have thought about it a number of times, and this is why it upsets me so much.

"I know all my players very well, but a number of them could never ever, ever disrespect a woman the way [that has been alleged] and Brett Stewart is definitely one of those players that never, ever would disrespect someone like that," she said.

Ummm...so she's formed the opinion that many of the players could do what Stewart's accused of? :shock:

 

[Timmah]

Sorry, am I wrong? Was the victim charged with a crime?

Just seems like a terribly Manly-biased thing to say.

 

[Timmah]

Speaking of Manly bias... how the hell is that an impartial witness? :lol:

 

[MSIH]

And the old man's impartial? You want someone to give a character reference who doesn't know him do you?

You're a moron.

 

[MSIH]

IMHO, the biggest 'WTF' to come out of the trial so far...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-flow-at-tribute/story-e6frexnr-1225925595939



Ummm...so she's formed the opinion that many of the players could do what Stewart's accused of? :shock:

No, she's formed the opinion that a number of them could never ever, ever do it, while the rest could only never ever do it.

 

[Timmah]

And the old man's impartial? You want someone to give a character reference who doesn't know him do you?

You're a moron.

I understand the character reference, but surely they could've chosen someone not paid by the MWSE club?

 

[MSIH]

I see your point. Apparently there's going to be about 50 of them, hence the 3 weeks. I'd say a few won't be employees.

 

[RL1908]

I understand the character reference, but surely they could've chosen someone not paid by the MWSE club?

Think you will find she was called as a witness by the Crown.

 

[Timmah]

I hope for his sake there's a few not from the club.