News Limited's Apology to Brett Stewart...

[DecoyRunner]

Don't use legal terms such as hearsay unless you understand them. The victim's allegations against a defendant in a sex case can never ammount to "hear say". Also - a newspaper can never present a disputed allegation or a witness's perception of events as "fact". The whole point of the criminal trial is to DETERMINE the facts. Nothing disputed is a "fact" until after the trial.

From what I read on here is that all that was printed were the allegations made by the victim and witnesses... The public need to remember INNOCENT till proven GUILTY. Do the papers have print that in every story....

Did the courts order an apology be printed? If not, what the F are you on about?

You won't find the articles (and quotes) in question unless you can get your hands on an actual copy of the papers. There were quotes from unnamed sources saying things like "He and Watmough were acting like buffoons, harassing everyone at the party", or something to that effect. Those articles are no longer on the website. They may seem harmless, but the matter was still going through the judicial process, so those kinds of blind quotes should require multiple sources to ensure the truth is protected.

Brett Stewart has spoken of seeking compensation. They issued the apology in appeasement. My contention is that if they had more than one source for the quotes that did not come from the alleged victim, they would not have apologised at all. They would have said "bring it on" and then shouted their vindication from the rooftops. IMHO.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Thats the point you imbecile. there was no witnesses

Hahahah. What on earth, do you think the alleged victim was if not an apparent eyewitness? You are below imbecile.

 

[MSIH]

So the witnesses and victims had inconsistent stories? That should have assisted the public to realising the significant doubt of the matter. Perhaps the alleged witnesses and victim should be held more accountable if their stories were completely without merit. Dishonest affadavits to the police and perjury are some potential charges in NSW or something of that nature, surely. Perhaps the police should be held more accountable for pressing charges on such flimsy evidence if the case was a dud from the get go. Ditto with your prosecution service. Perhaps there is more going on here and other parties responsible without stuffing up the rights of the press to report news? perhaps the jury was star struck.... Juries are not always the smartest people.

And one thing you guys need to remember - a jury acquittal does not say HE DID NOT DO IT - the jury may even believe on the balance of probabilities THAT HE DID DO IT - all it means is that the crown did not proove its case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

If noone is slamming the police or the crown for bringing the charges - then there was obviously some substance to the complaint. Its not the paper's fault that the jury came back with a NOT GUILTY verdict.

Hahahah. What on earth, do you think the alleged victim was if not an apparent eyewitness? You are below imbecile.

Good try buddy, but you said the "witnesses and victims" (why the plural for victim I don't know; maybe you mean Brett Stewart and his family?) thereby differentiating between the victim being a witness.

You clearly believe there were witnesses other than the "victim". You fell for the Telegraph's lies hook, line and sinker. Why? Because you're the imbecile.

 

[ANTiLAG]

They only apologised to lessen the blow in a defamation action.

38 [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Factors in mitigation of damages[/FONT]
(1) Evidence is admissible on behalf of the defendant, in mitigation of damages for the publication of defamatory matter, that:

(a) the defendant has made an apology to the plaintiff about the publication of the defamatory matter..

News Ltd is scum and will always be scum

Haha. So you're a mind reader now? Your accusation has a logical chain of reasoning based on relevant law - but I think you're far too quick to hang them "deductively".

Here's an issue to try and rack your brain around. Defamation is a civil action decided ont eh balance of probabilities. Sexual offences are criminal decided beyond reasonable doubt. The jury may have thought Brett Stewart did it at a 51% level, that means not guilty for the criminal charge - but means the defmation action will FAIL as the papers can run a truth defence: that Brett did do the crime. Think OJ Simpson cases if you're struggling witht he concepts. Not guilty for the criminal murder charge, but guilty for the civil wrongful death claim.

But more than that - There should be a qualified privilege defence claim in NSW. This would mean there is no defamation claim possible for those who accuse crime to the police or people with proper interest such as parents etc. Thus no defamation action possible against the victim. Statements made in the INVESTIGATION of any crime also have privilege. The papers are protected by the same qualified privilege defense where there is reporting of judicial proceedings.

The only way to defeat qualified privilege is showing that there was malice by the papers in reporting the Brett Stewart saga.

Can you show malice here? I cannot see it.

So, you say the apology was to soften a defmation blow - but a defmation action would most likely lose anyway thus I think the apology was out of the goodness of their hearts or to appease the fans. But your theory: fail.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Good try buddy, but you said the "witnesses and victims" (why the plural for victim I don't know; maybe you mean Brett Stewart and his family?) thereby differentiating between the victim being a witness.

You clearly believe there were witnesses other than the "victim". You fell for the Telegraph's lies hook, line and sinker. Why? Because you're the imbecile.

Hah. I have not read the Daily telegraph ever. Here's why you're the imbecile. I'm clearly responding to Beaver's Headgear's accusation with a QUESTION in that sentence of mine that you quote. Look at the original post. You have stupidly taken me out of context. The sentence after that I convey the logical conclusion that public had if the answer to the question was even YES. Thus the reporting should not have had the effect to slant the public. The next sentence I write:

"Perhaps the alleged witnesses and victim"

Sorry your comprehension skills are so weak. I blame your educators.

As for me falling for the telegraph's lies - with my legal mind I obviously believe in innocent until proven guilty - and as mentioned previously, I never read the Telegraph.

 

[manly40gimps0]

Hah. I have not read the Daily telegraph ever. Here's why you're the imbecile. I'm clearly responding to Beaver's Headgear's accusation with a QUESTION in that sentence of mine that you quote. Look at the original post. You have stupidly taken me out of context. The sentence after that I convey the logical conclusion that public had if the answer to the question was even YES. Thus the reporting should not have had the effect to slant the public. The next sentence I write:

"Perhaps the alleged witnesses and victim"

Sorry your comprehension skills are so weak. I blame your educators.

As for me falling for the telegraph's lies - with my legal mind I obviously believe in innocent until proven guilty - and as mentioned previously, I never read the Telegraph.

Ionic

 

[ANTiLAG]

Ionic

How is that ironic?

Can you not comprehend it?

Read in a "the" - hell put in a "should have" if you wanna go all Shakespeare; thus making phrase "the conclusion the public should have had"

But if you want me to spell it out for you I prefer;

"The sentence after that I convey the ONLY logical conclusion that THE public had availabe if the answer to the question was yes"

There are no other possible construction of that sentence to contain a contrary meaning. Even with rudimentary grammar the sentence is not ambiguous.

I gave you the credit of putting in an "r".

The point is valid. And if attacking my perfectly comprehensible grammar on finer points is all you have - then you have nothing substantive. But I will remember you as the guy who thinks that a victim of a sex crime is not a witness to the crime.