Brett Stewarts trial

[DJShaksta]

Stewarts biggest problem is that he admitted he was drunk and doesn't remember anything, so he cannot deny the allegations at all.
Nothing he says about the alleged incident is admissable because he admitted to having no memory of it.

Hes in a bad situation.

 

[Dave Q]

Hi GO and other viewers:-

Some things in context:-

DNA is useful if someone says they were not there or not connected as it shows a link. Some of the tests, they say there is a one in a 770 million chance that 2 people can have similar DNA.

But we have to understand that people's clothing can carry DNA. I can hug GO and he collects my DNA, he hugs Nice Beaver and my DNA goes onto him and thus there is a link between me and Nice Beaver whom I never hugged! No, I have kids!!

Stewart doesnt deny he was with the girl at some stage, that is established and common ground.

As for the allegation of touching or insertion, I guess we would need to see if the likelyhood of DNA or some other substance of Stewarts being displaced onto her person.

But it may be that she consented to a frolic, unlikely, but possible and that would explain any substances.

Now my experience is that when someone is too drunk to remember something, their evidence is pretty unreliable compared to someone of sober and sound mind and I imagine thats the police's experience too. That is why he shouldnt have said anything at the start about the evening. If he suddenly remembers something, they will make him out to be a liar as he is on the record for something else. If hes lied about that, then how could a court trust in what he says.

As for his past record, I think there were days when Ivan Milat and those sub-humans who murdered Anita Cobby, hadnt committed any crime. Anyone is pretty much capable of anything under certain conditions.

So I cant say if Brett's good record ( if it is true) could help him too much.

They will subject her to harsh and robust cross-examination, they will really throw every question to her about what she has said in her statement and they will be looking for inconsistencies in her version.

He has a good barrister, if she is spinning a story, he will capture her and discredit her. But she might survive it.

The law will run its course.

For those interested, I understand that the current state of the law is if they find your DNA at a crime scene, thats not enough to get you convicted. They need more!

 

[eagles4eva]

Hi GO and other viewers:-

Some things in context:-

DNA is useful if someone says they were not there or not connected as it shows a link. Some of the tests, they say there is a one in a 770 million chance that 2 people can have similar DNA.

But we have to understand that people's clothing can carry DNA. I can hug GO and he collects my DNA, he hugs Nice Beaver and my DNA goes onto him and thus there is a link between me and Nice Beaver whom I never hugged! No, I have kids!!

Stewart doesnt deny he was with the girl at some stage, that is established and common ground.

As for the allegation of touching or insertion, I guess we would need to see if the likelyhood of DNA or some other substance of Stewarts being displaced onto her person.

But it may be that she consented to a frolic, unlikely, but possible and that would explain any substances.

Now my experience is that when someone is too drunk to remember something, their evidence is pretty unreliable compared to someone of sober and sound mind and I imagine thats the police's experience too. That is why he shouldnt have said anything at the start about the evening. If he suddenly remembers something, they will make him out to be a liar as he is on the record for something else. If hes lied about that, then how could a court trust in what he says.

As for his past record, I think there were days when Ivan Milat and those sub-humans who murdered Anita Cobby, hadnt committed any crime. Anyone is pretty much capable of anything under certain conditions.

So I cant say if Brett's good record ( if it is true) could help him too much.

They will subject her to harsh and robust cross-examination, they will really throw every question to her about what she has said in her statement and they will be looking for inconsistencies in her version.

He has a good barrister, if she is spinning a story, he will capture her and discredit her. But she might survive it.

The law will run its course.

For those interested, I understand that the current state of the law is if they find your DNA at a crime scene, thats not enough to get you convicted. They need more!

Good post Dave, thanks for the clarity...

 

[Dave Q]

Good post Dave, thanks for the clarity...

Cheers

Ive read one in 10 billion (despite the fact the earth only has 6 billion people). They blow up the samples to millions of times.

On the stand the defence will remind her that she is under oath and that her evidence must be truthful.

Then they will ask her the same question in many different ways and make hay with the differences.

When she answers the same question put in another way, and she provides a different answer, they will point that out to her and force her to admit the difference and that the two or more stories cannot co-exist and therefore she has been untruthful.

Then she will try to correct herself and they will point that out too as reeking of recent invention, one cant believe her.. and so forth.

It should be an excellent cross-examination. Some very good minds having put it together.

I understand that Stewarts barrister (Mr Bellanto) has actually written text books for lawyers on the topic, not students, but already qualified lawyers. Thats the standard at work here. Xtreme high calibre.

But we will wait and see. Even the best lawyers can be bludgeoned by a good witness and the old judge!

 

[Talons]

Hi GO and other viewers:-

Some things in context:-

DNA is useful if someone says they were not there or not connected as it shows a link. Some of the tests, they say there is a one in a 770 million chance that 2 people can have similar DNA.

But we have to understand that people's clothing can carry DNA. I can hug GO and he collects my DNA, he hugs Nice Beaver and my DNA goes onto him and thus there is a link between me and Nice Beaver whom I never hugged! No, I have kids!!

Stewart doesn't deny he was with the girl at some stage, that is established and common ground.

As for the allegation of touching or insertion, I guess we would need to see if the likelyhood of DNA or some other substance of Stewarts being displaced onto her person.

But it may be that she consented to a frolic, unlikely, but possible and that would explain any substances.

Now my experience is that when someone is too drunk to remember something, their evidence is pretty unreliable compared to someone of sober and sound mind and I imagine thats the police's experience too. That is why he shouldnt have said anything at the start about the evening. If he suddenly remembers something, they will make him out to be a liar as he is on the record for something else. If hes lied about that, then how could a court trust in what he says.

As for his past record, I think there were days when Ivan Milat and those sub-humans who murdered Anita Cobby, hadnt committed any crime. Anyone is pretty much capable of anything under certain conditions.

So I cant say if Brett's good record ( if it is true) could help him too much.

They will subject her to harsh and robust cross-examination, they will really throw every question to her about what she has said in her statement and they will be looking for inconsistencies in her version.

He has a good barrister, if she is spinning a story, he will capture her and discredit her. But she might survive it.

The law will run its course.

For those interested, I understand that the current state of the law is if they find your DNA at a crime scene, thats not enough to get you convicted. They need more!

You make some excellent and fair points Dave, but can you "quote" where it says Brett "was too drunk to remember" I think you may find that the defense has gone a long way towards negating that pretense.

 

[Dave Q]

You make some excellent and fair points Dave, but can you "quote" where it says Brett "was too drunk to remember" I think you may find that the defense has gone a long way towards negating that pretense.

thank you.

I remain independent on the issue, but as league supporter, I wouldnt be too unhappy if he was found to be innocent. If guilty he must be dealt with accordingly. Do the crime, do the time.

The words "too drunk to remember" were ascribed to Stewart himself attempting to explain his actions as reported in the media at the time.

Very poorly advised at the time, insofar as I know, he hasnt resiled from that as yet. He may. Of course, drunkeness is no excuse. Ironically, another footballer, killed off that less than reasonable defence.

I daresay any rememberances he has are hazy at best. Other people around on the night may recall things he cannot. They may provide pretty accurrate accounts of things about him (independently)that he is unable to. In that case, how do we trust him?

If he can recall, and it is true that he can, lets hope he has a good sound basis for being able to do so, whatever that may be.

 

[nz eagle]

I doubt stewart ever actually said he was too drunk to remember, the prosecution certainly hasn't mentioned it in 3 days and that would be there main angle to getting a guilty verdict.

The only ones who said that are the media, as well as someone had to drag him off the girl in a stairwell so the facts may differ significantly from the media fiction.

 

[Dave Q]

I doubt stewart ever actually said he was too drunk to remember, the prosecution certainly hasn't mentioned it in 3 days and that would be there main angle to getting a guilty verdict.

The only ones who said that are the media, as well as someone had to drag him off the girl in a stairwell so the facts may differ significantly from the media fiction.

I dont neccessarily agree.

The prosecution would present their case first in which case, she is telling her story and the father and the science (if any). The defence will attack their witnesses in cross examination and the prosecution can re-examine them.

After the prosecution case concludes, Its up to Stewart to take the stand afterwards and if he suggests that he has a clear recollection, they can cross examine him and put his previous words (as reported) back to him.

Not that even have to do that. Word v word, her word and that of the father (if it corroborates her word) might be preferred.

He doesnt have to take the stand, but Id say he will, so as to deny the versions provided. Unless the defence can argue that the prosecution havent made out their case once their section of the case concludes.

Being dragged off her, if true, thats not a good look.

Thats how I see the proceedings, just my opinion anyway.

 

[Eagle_Rocker]

You got "I was too drunk to remember" from the daily telegraph, or some other similar paper. How do you know that is true? They also said that a neighbour had to pull him off her, we now know that was complete bullsh*t.

As for Stewart taking the stand, well there is every chance he won't. By the sounds of it the crown's witnesses are doing a good enough job for the defence.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

Being dragged off her, if true, thats not a good look.

It is not true, both parties have agreed that there are no eye witnesses to the incident

The dodgy family are already digging their own hole in court, an absolute joke this is even on trial

 

[Dave Q]

You got "I was too drunk to remember" from the daily telegraph, or some other similar paper. How do you know that is true? They also said that a neighbour had to pull him off her, we now know that was complete bullsh*t.

As for Stewart taking the stand, well there is every chance he won't. By the sounds of it the crown's witnesses are doing a good enough job for the defence.

You didnt read my post proeprly.

After the prosecution case, the defence can make an application that he has no case to answer.

 

[Dave Q]

It is not true, both parties have agreed that there are no eye witnesses to the incident

The dodgy family are already digging their own hole in court, an absolute joke this is even on trial

I think you mean third-party witnesses.

Its Ok to charge someone on the basis of a statement. Otherwise people who get mugged without anyone else around couldnt get justice.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

What I mean, is that outside of the girl and Stewart, there is not another person that viewed what happened

 

[grandorient]

Well Guys,

Another week in the coutroom. Let's see what unfolds.

Chins up, 2011 will be a good year for the Sea Eagles.

GO

 

[TheFrog]

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

What DNA would you expect to find?

Does mental illness automatically infer dishonesty?

What did the girl or her father have to gain out of making this up?

It's not what you think, or what I think, but what a court thinks. I would have thought they would have some trouble making this stick, but police prosecution experts who know what they are talking about apparently believe he has a case to answer, or they would not waste their time.

 

[Talons]

What DNA would you expect to find?...Then why submit the girl to the added trauma of DNA testing ?

Does mental illness automatically infer dishonesty?..Did anyone state unequivocally that it did?

What did the girl or her father have to gain out of making this up?...A conviction could leave the "supposed victim" open for compensation on numerous grounds.

 

[Dave Q]

Fraud is a pretty wide subject anyways. In theory, anybody who has ever lied has committed a kind of fraud, that just about covers all of us.

And just because you committ a fraud in one area, doesnt mean that you are committing it again or cant be trusted on other matters.

Even if they found Stewarts DNA on her person, it may have been that she touched Stewart and then she touched her person or whatever. I am not sure whether the DNA couldnt travel through clothes anyway as most fibres are pourous.

Thus if that was the scenario. science wont resolve the issue.

But If she says that she didnt touch herself and they find his DNA in her interior, that might suggest penetration. Of course, she may have touched something he touched earlier....

If Stewart is found guilty, I'd say she would almost certainly be entitled to compensation and the government would sue him to get the money back.

But the cops are not idiots.

 

[eagles4eva]

One things that is certain, one of the two is lying!!!

 

[Dave Q]

One things that is certain, one of the two is lying!!!

Possibly!

Miunderstanding is another interesting concept.

I am sure all of us have been in situations where we thought we have heard or seen something and its turned out to be wrong.

For example, when you see something in the distance and as you approach, the shape is more defined and it turns out to be not what you thought it was.

If you go out on a country road in summer, look at road ahead, it seems to be wet. But its not.

Some people with mental problems, it is true that they see and they even feel things that are not true. The brain is just making things up.

All of us have probably had dreams that seemed real until we woke up.

Buts its a big gig to make up a sexual assault on the basis of an errant mental process ( ie inocently).

The prosecution have to prove their case....beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats a high test. In theory, the merest shadow of a doubt, is enough doubt to set him free.

If he is found not guilty, we will need to forgive him. The whole league will need to forgive and forget. We should not entertain any doubts as to his character. We can all move on with Brett back in the family of the game. I think thats important.

 

[eagles4eva]

Possibly!

Miunderstanding is another interesting concept.

I am sure all of us have been in situations where we thought we have heard or seen something and its turned out to be wrong.

For example, when you see something in the distance and as you approach, the shape is more defined and it turns out to be not what you thought it was.

If you go out on a country road in summer, look at road ahead, it seems to be wet. But its not.

Some people with mental problems, it is true that they see and they even feel things that are not true. The brain is just making things up.

All of us have probably had dreams that seemed real until we woke up.

Buts its a big gig to make up a sexual assault on the basis of an errant mental process ( ie inocently).

The prosecution have to prove their case....beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats a high test. In theory, the merest shadow of a doubt, is enough doubt to set him free.

If he is found not guilty, we will need to forgive him. The whole league will need to forgive and forget. We should not entertain any doubts as to his character. We can all move on with Brett back in the family of the game. I think thats important.

I agree, the mental illness is soooo hard to gauge someone’s credibility in regards to what is reality and or fantasy…

The unfortunate thing through all this is the assumption that people with mental illness are either full of crap or not in control of their thoughts or actions..

I am one hoping the Brett is innocent, but also support people with mental illness..