DecoyRunner
Juniors
- Messages
- 434
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.