Brett Stewarts trial

[manly40gimps0]

Teen who accused League star of sex assault had 'history of hallucinations', court hears.
A woman who says she was sexually assaulted by Manly rugby league star Brett Stewart has a history of mental illness including hallucinations, for which she has been professionally treated, a court has been told
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...s-court-hears-20100915-15c8c.html?from=smh_sb

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nrl-star-brett-stewart-touched-me/story-e6freuy9-1225923924246http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nrl-star-brett-stewart-touched-me/story-e6freuy9-1225923924246http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nrl-star-brett-stewart-touched-me/story-e6freuy9-1225923924246
NRL star Brett Stewart 'touched me', trial told

THE teenager who claims rugby league star Brett Stewart indecently assaulted her was treated for "a psychotic illness'' before the alleged incident, a jury has heard.

The Crown today opened its case against the Manly fullback, saying the young woman's unfortunate psychiatric history did not mean she was an unreliable witness, The Daily Telegraphhttp://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nrl-star-brett-stewart-touched-me/story-e6freuy9-1225923924246http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nrl-star-brett-stewart-touched-me/story-e6freuy9-1225923924246 reports.http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nrl-star-brett-stewart-touched-me/story-e6freuy9-1225923924246
Prosecutor Peter Skinner told the jury the then 17-year-old, who cannot be identified, claims she was smoking a cigarette outside a North Manly block of units when an allegedly intoxicated Stewart arrived home from a season launch function on March 6, 2009.
She alleges the pair had a brief conversation in which Stewart asked her what she was doing.
She claims she told him she was "just having a cigarette'', to which he allegedly replied: "Yuck''.

Mr Skinner said he expected the young woman's evidence to be that Stewart then "cornered her against the mailbox wall ... and put his tongue in her mouth'' before "she pushed him away''.
This allegedly happened twice, before she then claims she "felt his hand touch the inside of her left leg ... felt his hand go up inside her'' underwear.
She soon went inside to tell her father what had allegedly happened, and he was "irate'', the court heard, a short time later getting into a scuffle with Stewart, the court heard.
Mr Skinner said there would be evidence from the doctor who had treated the young woman as a psychiatric patient from November 2007, diagnosing her with a "schizoaffective disorder''.
"I anticipate in his evidence he will say that she has had in the past, and he has treated for, in the past, some acute episodes ... for severe thought disorder,'' the prosecutor said.
"I expect that his evidence will be that she was on medication, and I expect his evidence will be that the last time she needed treatment for psychotic behaviour, including auditory hallucinations, was in October 2008.''
Stewart’s counsel Tony Bellanto QC told the court his client simply didn't do any of the things alleged by the complainant.
Mr Bellanto said one major challenge would be the reliability of both the alleged victim and, in particular, her father.
Earlier the jury was told to ignore what they may have heard about the bad behaviour of "a minority" of sports stars because it was unfair and irrelevant to the Manly fullback's case.

"What you have to do is determine the actions of the accused if any ... That's the only decision that matters."

Stewart has pleaded not guilty to three counts of sexual and indecent assault against the young woman in March 2009..


---------------

Wow.... Amazed they have proceeded with the case so far. So little evidence, and most of it is circumstantial.

 

[CC_Eagle]

Whilst I have no legal qualifications beyond HSC Legal Studies, I can't see him being found guilty :

* No DNA evidence at all.
* The complainant is loony.
* The only witness has been previously convincted for fraud.

Based on the above, it would be impossible to say that Brett was guilty of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The whole thing infuriates me as this will, and already has had a truly massive impact on his career. All because a hallucinogenic girl with a history of mental disorder, thinks she was touched whilst sucking on a durrie, and the only witness is her criminal father.

How this thing even went to trial is beyond me.

b

 

[manly40gimps0]

Whilst I have no legal qualifications beyond HSC Legal Studies, I can't see him being found guilty :

* No DNA evidence at all.
* The complainant is loony.
* The only witness has been previously convinced for fraud.

Based on the above, it would be impossible to say that Brett was guilty of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The whole thing infuriates me as this will, and already has had a truly massive impact on his career. All because a hallucinogenic girl with a history of mental disorder, thinks she was touched whilst sucking on a durrie, and the only witness is her criminal father.

How this thing even went to trial is beyond me.

b

The only witness is in fact the girl as in the article it says she went and told her father, then he confronted Stewart.

 

[manly40gimps0]

Remember when the news broke of the alleged rape it was reported that Brett had to be dragged off her in a stairwell by her father, where the f**k did that bullsh*t come from? Media beat up.:?
Look.. in way I'm deffending Stewart if he's guilty he can get f**ked.

 

[grandorient]

If Stewart is guilty, I'll be a monkeys uncle.

Followed this virtually from the start. There is so much that doesn't ring true. Also true, I am not a barrister or solicitor, but I have been walking on this planet for over 64 years, and this case simply does not have a guilty feel about it.

Good luck to Brett Stewart, if he is innocent, he will get off, if guilty, I guess I will have to eat my words.

GO

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

Ok... Logically this is the bit that I'm struggling with.

Brett says 'Yuck' to a durrie and then wants to suck the life out of her face. That's my definition of 'yuck'.

While I may not have travelled as long as you GO, I feel the same and have from the start. I morally object to rape and indecent assault, but I also expect the legal system to operate in a sensible manner. So far, and it is early days, I think this is a waste of tax payer money.

 

[eagles4eva]

I am hoping he is innocent, but I just hope all this is resolved and put to bed..

There seems to be a lot of if's in regards to Stewarts guilt

 

[grandorient]

Yes eagles4eva,

I too hope it's resolved, and he is back playing his brilliant best for you guys next year, without any cloud over his head.

The game needs players of Stewart's calibre, regardless of which club he plays for. At his best, he is great to watch and is a credit to the game of rugby league.

Perhaps I shouldn't be posting these type of comments at the present time, that is with the trial going on. If thats the case, guys, please tell me to bugger off. It's just that I firmly believe this man is innocent.

GO

 

[Nice Beaver]

Yes eagles4eva,

I too hope it's resolved, and he is back playing his brilliant best for you guys next year, without any cloud over his head.

The game needs players of Stewart's calibre, regardless of which club he plays for. At his best, he is great to watch and is a credit to the game of rugby league.

Perhaps I shouldn't be posting these type of comments at the present time, that is with the trial going on. If thats the case, guys, please tell me to bugger off. It's just that I firmly believe this man is innocent.

GO

Hey GO

As far as I'm concerned you are a rare breed - someone who goes into another teams forums and CONTRIBUTES rather than posts the usual utter tripe that trolls like to leave.

I say post away GO.

It is a touchy subject but I don't see how your comments are enflaming anything or causing issues.

The sooner the whole issue is resolved the better for all involved.

 

[CC_Eagle]

Go nuts GO.

The more proclaiming Brett's innocence, the better.

 

[eagles4eva]

Yes eagles4eva,

I too hope it's resolved, and he is back playing his brilliant best for you guys next year, without any cloud over his head.

The game needs players of Stewart's calibre, regardless of which club he plays for. At his best, he is great to watch and is a credit to the game of rugby league.

Perhaps I shouldn't be posting these type of comments at the present time, that is with the trial going on. If thats the case, guys, please tell me to bugger off. It's just that I firmly believe this man is innocent.

GO

Nah, good contribution to the thread, we are all hoping to see Snake back at his best too....

 

[grandorient]

Nah, good contribution to the thread, we are all hoping to see Snake back at his best too....

Is Snake Brett's nickname.

How did he get that??

GO

 

[eagles4eva]

The Splash!: So is it true that they gave you your nickname ‘Snake’ because of the packet of snakes you carry round in your kit-bag to top up your sugar levels?
Brett: Actually, it started when Peter Sharpe was coaching us and I came back from that shoulder reconstruction. I was bit skinnier then anyway and when I turned up for training, he said: “Your shoulders look like two brown snakes!” It sort of took off from there and the jelly snakes just added to it.

taken from a article he did a few years back...

Source -
http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/k
http://www.thesplash.com.au/archives/32-brett-stewart-interview

 

[hellteam]

He'll be right, the prosecutions case sounds pretty sh*thouse to me

 

[Brooky_boy]

I hope the trial ends for good quickly and the dirty little scuppa is hit by a car walking out of court. Stewart has had enough dramas and hope he is back playing good footy next year.

 

[Dave Q]

I think we should wait before we draw conclusions and lets not blame the person who could be found to be the victim. She deserves a go.

Just because she has had hallucinations in the past doesnt mean she had them at the time she met Stewart.

DNA would prove nothing in this case.

He already said he was so drunk he couldnt remember anything, so hes not much good for a different version of events. Thats a great shame and a really dumb thing to say.

She'll be cross-examined within an inch of her life and if she pulls through, hes history.

The cops arent stupid, they wouldnt proceed if they thought he was innocent. They dont win every case, but I wouldnt be backing against them yet.

Its unfortunate that hes found himself in this trouble.

This game has to give up drinking.

I wasnt there, neither was anyone on this thread, so we dont know if he did it or not.

 

[grandorient]

Hi Dave,

I don't disagree with anything you've said.

I guess my view is based simply on what I have read and adding those facts together, together with a gut feeling, that comes with lifes experiences.

No, you're quite right, I wasn't there, but something just doesn't gel, doesn't seem quite right.

Even though I do have my personal point of view, perhaps i shouldn't express that on an open forum, especially when the trial is under way. The only thing in my favour, is that I am simply an anonymous internet username.

However, I do not wish to go against the rules of the forum, as I spend many enoyable and interesting hours here.

Regards
GO

 

[Nice Beaver]

The way I see this (and assuming no guilt or innocence) is this.

Firstly, I don't understand the comment from Dave Q about DNA proving nothing in this case. If Brett's DNA was found on the girl or vice versa then he would be dead in the water. If there is no DNA found on either party then I fail to see how that does not go some way to absolving Stewart and backing up his side of the story.

Secondly, the way I understand things, with no physical evidence and no witnesses, it will come down to a "he said, she said" scenario. Not strong grounds for a conviction given Stewart's previous exemplary community standing and the girls unfortunate history.

As I have always said on this, I wasn't there and have no idea what went on so am not assuming innocence or guilt, but from the outside looking in things would seem to heavily fall in favour of a not guilty verdict.

 

[eagles4eva]

The way I see this (and assuming no guilt or innocence) is this.

Firstly, I don't understand the comment from Dave Q about DNA proving nothing in this case. If Brett's DNA was found on the girl or vice versa then he would be dead in the water. If there is no DNA found on either party then I fail to see how that does not go some way to absolving Stewart and backing up his side of the story.

Secondly, the way I understand things, with no physical evidence and no witnesses, it will come down to a "he said, she said" scenario. Not strong grounds for a conviction given Stewart's previous exemplary community standing and the girls unfortunate history.

As I have always said on this, I wasn't there and have no idea what went on so am not assuming innocence or guilt, but from the outside looking in things would seem to heavily fall in favour of a not guilty verdict.

I would agree, with a DNA match you would think it would indicate his guilt, i am no legal expert so I'll leave it with the courts and the trial process.

I just hope either way it's done and dusted and it can all be layed to rest...