What I really hate
Our Judiciary system. (The courts, not the League tribunal).
Not passing judgment on Brett Stewart, but it absolutely repulses me that we have a legal system that operates on the basis of destroying the credibility of the supposed victim. So far it's been claimed or implied by the defence that:
- Her father is a criminal,
- She's psychotic,
- She's a "bad girl" because she smoked at 17,
- She was a school dropout and unemployed,
- She's a liar,
- She's a slut because she was wearing tight shorts and a loose shirt in a stairwell late at night,
- She asked for it,
- He tried to get away and she tried to get it on.
No wonder so few rape victims follow it to trial.
Not passing judgment on Brett Stewart, but it absolutely repulses me that we have a legal system that operates on the basis of destroying the credibility of the supposed victim. So far it's been claimed or implied by the defence that:
- Her father is a criminal,
- She's psychotic,
- She's a "bad girl" because she smoked at 17,
- She was a school dropout and unemployed,
- She's a liar,
- She's a slut because she was wearing tight shorts and a loose shirt in a stairwell late at night,
- She asked for it,
- He tried to get away and she tried to get it on.
No wonder so few rape victims follow it to trial.
We must all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately
Stolen from Silvertails.net from a daily attender of the case
We have been put on lockdown and told to choose our words carefully
LUNCHTIME: 15 September 2010:
Jury selected 5 women, one under 25. 7 men, 3 under 25, others older. All WASPs.
There was some earlier argument with regard to intoxication. Crown wanted to infer Brett's decision making might have been impaired. Defense wants it out. The inference with alcohol is that people can't control themselves when intoxicated and thus Brett did the things he's accused of.
The Crown's case is that Brett left the Manly Pacific Hotel in a cab, arrived home and the girl was at the front gate, he brushed past her, she followed, he stopped and grabbed her, kissed her twice with his tongue and then stuck his finger/s in her vagina. She fled indoors and dad come out, scuffled with Brett, and then got a neighbour to call the cops. The cops arrived and arrested Brett and took the girl to Royal NSH. They contend that there is a bruise on her arm and a redness near her vagina, consistent with a finger.
Brett's QC:
Opened strongly with a denial of the three events. There is no issue that Brett left the hotel and arrived in a taxi. What Brett is asserting is that the girl confronted him at the gate to the units after he told her smoking was stupid. She went inside and the dad raced outside and there was a scuffle with Brett. The defence will contend that the girl has psychiatric issues, that the dad has an agenda and that Brett volunteered his DNA from fingers and mouth before he washed at the police station and that no DNA of the girls was found
Afternoon session.
Witnesses called - first one, Duty Manager Steyne Hotel.
He gave a five second assessment of Brett's group at the hotel and got the security guard to ask them to leave. While they were there, there was no abuse or annoying behaviour to other patrons. Brett was seated at the pub and had heavy eyelids according to the manager. When asked to leave they did. Steyne were obviously paranoid about licence renewal at that time.
Brett's QC had little difficulty demolishing the idea that Brett was intoxicated.
Second witness - Security guard, Steyne hotel.
He was obviously embarrassed about his Police statement made about 6 weeks after the event. Said he talked to Brett and Brett was 'swaying', maybe spilt a bit of beer. Brett and his group left after being asked.
"I can't really remember reading through my police statement before signing". Now there's a bright boy.
Witness three - taxi driver who drove him home from the Manly Pacific.
Said that Brett was drunk. head wobbling. Brett's QC asked if Brett was asleep? Did he pay? did he give directions home? Answers, "yes".
Implication is that Brett was not intoxicated. The cab driver was confused.
There was some more confusion as to whether he went from the Pacific home, or went from the Steyne. No bar staff or others were called by the prosecution from the Pacific strangely.
There was other stuff about the complainant but it's suppressed for obvious reasons.
But the context of the defense is that she came onto Brett. I wish I could post about it, but I can't.
End of day one. Score, maybe Brett up by two.
There are 11 members of this jury. I think people are confused with that great movie '12 Angry Men' starring Henry Fonda. I can't comment as to the jury selection process, as we were all asked to vacate the court while that process was on. needless to say they look like a rugby league crowd, whatever that might mean. (no Asians?)
OK here goes Thursdday's effort:
This evidence is OK to publish but not her name of her specific symptom. She appeared as a small 'mousy' type with glasses.
She appeared via closed circuit video. The court was cleared of all except press. So I stayed.
The Crown led her through he statement of the night's events.
Basically she was sitting next to the gate leading into the complex, Brett arrived by cab, she stood up and Brett and her had a conversation about smoking. Brett said 'yuk" and did a waving hand motion near his nose. The girl says she started walking back into the complex and Brett called her back and grabbed her and kissed her, twice. Then he put his hand up her shorts and inserted his finger into her vagina. She pulled free and ran into the complex. Her dad came out and there was a scuffle and the cops were called by a neighbour. She was taken to the RNS hospital and examined. She was shown a series of photos about the complex and pointed out where the alleged event took place. That was the extent of her evidence for the prosecution.
There was a brief interlude wheere a barrister appeared for the press regarding the publication of certain matters. What was allowed to be published is the fact that the girl has a diagnosis of mental illness. Any symptoms aren't allowed to be published, although they can be put to the jury.
Arguement followed on about the COPS reports and the psychiatrists notes.
Morning tea break.
Cross examination by Bellanto for Brett.
Is she still on medication? yes. At the time of the incident? yes. She was shown the photos of the complex again and the fact that the gate doesn't automatically shut. (remember this was one reason she gave to talking to Brett about leaving the gate open) Anyway, Although she had a history of sitting at the back of her unit and smoking, this night she was outside the complex sitting on concrete. She was asked that if Brett indicated a distaste for smoking, why he would then kiss her? She looked a little stunned but said that he did anyway. She said that she recognized him from TV. She was having regular sessions with a psychiatrist at that time. She also admitted her memory was 'somewhat' unreliable. "My family help me with my memory", she said.
Lunch. Bellanto will continue this afternoon,. More later.
Oh yes, one question Bellanto put to the girl was, 'had she been looking through the Stewart's units window in the week prior to the alledged event?' She didn't answer this, but looked startled. Could be a start of a 'stalking' suggestion. We'll see. The cross is to continue after 2.00pm.
Afternoon;
Ballanto continues to cross examine the girl.
Bellanto pressed the girl on whether Brett had said,"I need/want to go" as he walked past her. She said "no he didn't say that". Bellanto referred her to her original statement, where she said Brett had said he wanted to go in. She replied she couldn't remember.
Bellanto then concentrated on the tightness or otherwise of the shorts. He got the admission that the shorts were tight.
Bellanto then turned to the the medical condition of the girl. She couldn't remember what drugs she took as medication.
She said that her step-mum and dad helped her remember things.
Bellanto put it to her that she made the assault up. She denied that and said why would she.
Bellanto said that she made it up, got her dad involved, and it spiralled out of control. He asserted that she came onto Brett and when rejected, ran inside and told the story. Bellanto put it to her that there was no kissing, no finger, no running away by herself.
Bellanto asked whether she was taking medication at the time, she said I think I was.
Bellanto led the girl through her stuff compassionately, so as not to distress her or distress any jury members.
What the jury will make of it, who knows.
The dad then took the stand.
His testimony was similar to the committal hearing. He's changed his name (suppressed) and went on about how his daughter came running into his unit, told the story of this 'guy' touching her, and he went out to avenger her honor.
A tape was played of his 000 call. The crown was trying to show the girl's distress at that time.
Bellanto went through his list of crimes. The dad got a bit loud and puffed up and his cross examination continues tomorrow.
My view: The girl; flaky and not believable, memory losses and contradictions in evidence. Dad: Transparent and dishonest.
I can update this if anyone wants to know it all
We have been put on lockdown and told to choose our words carefully
LUNCHTIME: 15 September 2010:
Jury selected 5 women, one under 25. 7 men, 3 under 25, others older. All WASPs.
There was some earlier argument with regard to intoxication. Crown wanted to infer Brett's decision making might have been impaired. Defense wants it out. The inference with alcohol is that people can't control themselves when intoxicated and thus Brett did the things he's accused of.
The Crown's case is that Brett left the Manly Pacific Hotel in a cab, arrived home and the girl was at the front gate, he brushed past her, she followed, he stopped and grabbed her, kissed her twice with his tongue and then stuck his finger/s in her vagina. She fled indoors and dad come out, scuffled with Brett, and then got a neighbour to call the cops. The cops arrived and arrested Brett and took the girl to Royal NSH. They contend that there is a bruise on her arm and a redness near her vagina, consistent with a finger.
Brett's QC:
Opened strongly with a denial of the three events. There is no issue that Brett left the hotel and arrived in a taxi. What Brett is asserting is that the girl confronted him at the gate to the units after he told her smoking was stupid. She went inside and the dad raced outside and there was a scuffle with Brett. The defence will contend that the girl has psychiatric issues, that the dad has an agenda and that Brett volunteered his DNA from fingers and mouth before he washed at the police station and that no DNA of the girls was found
Afternoon session.
Witnesses called - first one, Duty Manager Steyne Hotel.
He gave a five second assessment of Brett's group at the hotel and got the security guard to ask them to leave. While they were there, there was no abuse or annoying behaviour to other patrons. Brett was seated at the pub and had heavy eyelids according to the manager. When asked to leave they did. Steyne were obviously paranoid about licence renewal at that time.
Brett's QC had little difficulty demolishing the idea that Brett was intoxicated.
Second witness - Security guard, Steyne hotel.
He was obviously embarrassed about his Police statement made about 6 weeks after the event. Said he talked to Brett and Brett was 'swaying', maybe spilt a bit of beer. Brett and his group left after being asked.
"I can't really remember reading through my police statement before signing". Now there's a bright boy.
Witness three - taxi driver who drove him home from the Manly Pacific.
Said that Brett was drunk. head wobbling. Brett's QC asked if Brett was asleep? Did he pay? did he give directions home? Answers, "yes".
Implication is that Brett was not intoxicated. The cab driver was confused.
There was some more confusion as to whether he went from the Pacific home, or went from the Steyne. No bar staff or others were called by the prosecution from the Pacific strangely.
There was other stuff about the complainant but it's suppressed for obvious reasons.
But the context of the defense is that she came onto Brett. I wish I could post about it, but I can't.
End of day one. Score, maybe Brett up by two.
There are 11 members of this jury. I think people are confused with that great movie '12 Angry Men' starring Henry Fonda. I can't comment as to the jury selection process, as we were all asked to vacate the court while that process was on. needless to say they look like a rugby league crowd, whatever that might mean. (no Asians?)
OK here goes Thursdday's effort:
This evidence is OK to publish but not her name of her specific symptom. She appeared as a small 'mousy' type with glasses.
She appeared via closed circuit video. The court was cleared of all except press. So I stayed.
The Crown led her through he statement of the night's events.
Basically she was sitting next to the gate leading into the complex, Brett arrived by cab, she stood up and Brett and her had a conversation about smoking. Brett said 'yuk" and did a waving hand motion near his nose. The girl says she started walking back into the complex and Brett called her back and grabbed her and kissed her, twice. Then he put his hand up her shorts and inserted his finger into her vagina. She pulled free and ran into the complex. Her dad came out and there was a scuffle and the cops were called by a neighbour. She was taken to the RNS hospital and examined. She was shown a series of photos about the complex and pointed out where the alleged event took place. That was the extent of her evidence for the prosecution.
There was a brief interlude wheere a barrister appeared for the press regarding the publication of certain matters. What was allowed to be published is the fact that the girl has a diagnosis of mental illness. Any symptoms aren't allowed to be published, although they can be put to the jury.
Arguement followed on about the COPS reports and the psychiatrists notes.
Morning tea break.
Cross examination by Bellanto for Brett.
Is she still on medication? yes. At the time of the incident? yes. She was shown the photos of the complex again and the fact that the gate doesn't automatically shut. (remember this was one reason she gave to talking to Brett about leaving the gate open) Anyway, Although she had a history of sitting at the back of her unit and smoking, this night she was outside the complex sitting on concrete. She was asked that if Brett indicated a distaste for smoking, why he would then kiss her? She looked a little stunned but said that he did anyway. She said that she recognized him from TV. She was having regular sessions with a psychiatrist at that time. She also admitted her memory was 'somewhat' unreliable. "My family help me with my memory", she said.
Lunch. Bellanto will continue this afternoon,. More later.
Oh yes, one question Bellanto put to the girl was, 'had she been looking through the Stewart's units window in the week prior to the alledged event?' She didn't answer this, but looked startled. Could be a start of a 'stalking' suggestion. We'll see. The cross is to continue after 2.00pm.
Afternoon;
Ballanto continues to cross examine the girl.
Bellanto pressed the girl on whether Brett had said,"I need/want to go" as he walked past her. She said "no he didn't say that". Bellanto referred her to her original statement, where she said Brett had said he wanted to go in. She replied she couldn't remember.
Bellanto then concentrated on the tightness or otherwise of the shorts. He got the admission that the shorts were tight.
Bellanto then turned to the the medical condition of the girl. She couldn't remember what drugs she took as medication.
She said that her step-mum and dad helped her remember things.
Bellanto put it to her that she made the assault up. She denied that and said why would she.
Bellanto said that she made it up, got her dad involved, and it spiralled out of control. He asserted that she came onto Brett and when rejected, ran inside and told the story. Bellanto put it to her that there was no kissing, no finger, no running away by herself.
Bellanto asked whether she was taking medication at the time, she said I think I was.
Bellanto led the girl through her stuff compassionately, so as not to distress her or distress any jury members.
What the jury will make of it, who knows.
The dad then took the stand.
His testimony was similar to the committal hearing. He's changed his name (suppressed) and went on about how his daughter came running into his unit, told the story of this 'guy' touching her, and he went out to avenger her honor.
A tape was played of his 000 call. The crown was trying to show the girl's distress at that time.
Bellanto went through his list of crimes. The dad got a bit loud and puffed up and his cross examination continues tomorrow.
My view: The girl; flaky and not believable, memory losses and contradictions in evidence. Dad: Transparent and dishonest.
I can update this if anyone wants to know it all
Last edited by The Eagle on Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Absolutely trained to the minute"
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
-
CooperCronk
- Monsoon
- Posts: 1610
- Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:34 am
- Location: Storm Land
Yeah, Eagle keep us updated, its quite an interesting case.
Aside that this case is about Brett Stewart, my feelings are similar to TC's about our Judicial System especially in rape cases.
Aside that this case is about Brett Stewart, my feelings are similar to TC's about our Judicial System especially in rape cases.
Ok,again taken directly from D5MS from Silvertails.net
O K, here we go.
Friday.
Bellanto then continued with the dad's cross examination.
Bellanto discussed the time line over again between alleged event and when the cops were called, and whether the dad had taken over the 'event' and controlled it. Denied by dad.
Bellanto then took the dad through the girl's condition. The dad said that the girl complained all the time.
There was a lot about who said what to whom at the start. The dad said that Brett had denied doing anything before he accused him of touching his daughter. (this is important as the Crown want the jury to see Brett's denial as a sort of precursor to what the dad is saying he did, therefore a partial admission)
This was unresolved with the dad sticking to his version.
The dad had a few outbursts during his cross about his view on what constitutes 'rape'. He considers a hand on the breast as rape.
Bellanto stopped his cross of the dad at this point.
The girl's mum was then called;
She basically said that she heard running down the side of the unit, came down and saw the dad confronting Brett outside the units.
She contradicted the dad's version by stating that she heard dad accuse Brett before Brett's denial.
She claimed to have attempted to calm the situation. The mum denied having any pre-knowledge of Brett Stewart, but Bellanto showed her that in the week preceding the alleged 'event' she spoke to her step son and told him they shared a unit complex with Brett Stewart.
The mum admitted her daughter saw things that were'nt there, and said things that weren't true.
She said that when the event was occurring she heard Brett say 'bro' many times.
She also stated that she and her husband adjusted the girl's medication.
Witness three; the male neighbour.
At home playing with his dog with his wife and small child. Called over to the fence by his wife, commotion outside. Saw the dad flaying at Brett. Brett backing into fence. Dad yelling "Did you touch my daughter". All he heard Brett saying is 'let's talk about this inside'. Dad asked the neighbour to call the police. He did, (tape played) and they arrived a short time later. He watched through the window and saw the dad and Brett arguing.
Bellanto cross examination
He showed the neighbour photos of his front garden and they agreed that the neighbour could see the area near the letterboxes outside the complex. The neighbour agreed that the dad was the aggressor.
Next witness, Elizabeth Marratt (I think that's her last name)
Employee of the Manly Sea Eagles as a sports scientist/conditioner.
Attended the pre-season launch and accompanied Brett to the Steyne and Manly Pacific hotels. Bellanto took her through Brett's playing history and accomplishments. He took her through hsis personal profile and what he does in the community and how he is held in such high respect by everyone associated with the game. The 'face of rugby league' etc.
She stated that Brett would never disrespect a woman and had never heard or seen any such action. She became emotional and had a little weep. Afterthe launch she walked with Brett to the hotels and met many fans along the way. Brett was not intoxicated and treated each fan with respect. She stated she had never heard him say bro, only the NZ players called others by that name. She was terrific.
Cross examination by the Crown.
The Crown attempted to infer she had been intimate with Brett having had her arm around him at the pub, as shown on some CCCTV footage. She replied that was friendly and Brett was supporting her.
A very good point to end the day
Be mindful of what you speak here on this case,it is a criminal preceding and you can get yourself and your mods in trouble with
stupid and innapropriate posts,i wont report anything to anyone however if someone from the police were to look,you may have
things to answer for yourself,as will your mods+Site owner
For further warnings see Silvertails.net and be careful
O K, here we go.
Friday.
Bellanto then continued with the dad's cross examination.
Bellanto discussed the time line over again between alleged event and when the cops were called, and whether the dad had taken over the 'event' and controlled it. Denied by dad.
Bellanto then took the dad through the girl's condition. The dad said that the girl complained all the time.
There was a lot about who said what to whom at the start. The dad said that Brett had denied doing anything before he accused him of touching his daughter. (this is important as the Crown want the jury to see Brett's denial as a sort of precursor to what the dad is saying he did, therefore a partial admission)
This was unresolved with the dad sticking to his version.
The dad had a few outbursts during his cross about his view on what constitutes 'rape'. He considers a hand on the breast as rape.
Bellanto stopped his cross of the dad at this point.
The girl's mum was then called;
She basically said that she heard running down the side of the unit, came down and saw the dad confronting Brett outside the units.
She contradicted the dad's version by stating that she heard dad accuse Brett before Brett's denial.
She claimed to have attempted to calm the situation. The mum denied having any pre-knowledge of Brett Stewart, but Bellanto showed her that in the week preceding the alleged 'event' she spoke to her step son and told him they shared a unit complex with Brett Stewart.
The mum admitted her daughter saw things that were'nt there, and said things that weren't true.
She said that when the event was occurring she heard Brett say 'bro' many times.
She also stated that she and her husband adjusted the girl's medication.
Witness three; the male neighbour.
At home playing with his dog with his wife and small child. Called over to the fence by his wife, commotion outside. Saw the dad flaying at Brett. Brett backing into fence. Dad yelling "Did you touch my daughter". All he heard Brett saying is 'let's talk about this inside'. Dad asked the neighbour to call the police. He did, (tape played) and they arrived a short time later. He watched through the window and saw the dad and Brett arguing.
Bellanto cross examination
He showed the neighbour photos of his front garden and they agreed that the neighbour could see the area near the letterboxes outside the complex. The neighbour agreed that the dad was the aggressor.
Next witness, Elizabeth Marratt (I think that's her last name)
Employee of the Manly Sea Eagles as a sports scientist/conditioner.
Attended the pre-season launch and accompanied Brett to the Steyne and Manly Pacific hotels. Bellanto took her through Brett's playing history and accomplishments. He took her through hsis personal profile and what he does in the community and how he is held in such high respect by everyone associated with the game. The 'face of rugby league' etc.
She stated that Brett would never disrespect a woman and had never heard or seen any such action. She became emotional and had a little weep. Afterthe launch she walked with Brett to the hotels and met many fans along the way. Brett was not intoxicated and treated each fan with respect. She stated she had never heard him say bro, only the NZ players called others by that name. She was terrific.
Cross examination by the Crown.
The Crown attempted to infer she had been intimate with Brett having had her arm around him at the pub, as shown on some CCCTV footage. She replied that was friendly and Brett was supporting her.
A very good point to end the day
Be mindful of what you speak here on this case,it is a criminal preceding and you can get yourself and your mods in trouble with
stupid and innapropriate posts,i wont report anything to anyone however if someone from the police were to look,you may have
things to answer for yourself,as will your mods+Site owner
For further warnings see Silvertails.net and be careful
"Absolutely trained to the minute"
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
Can i get a mod or the author to rename the actual topic?
It seems like a good idea so people who havent seen it
can have a look if they so chose
Also delete this post after the name changes,if possible
It seems like a good idea so people who havent seen it
can have a look if they so chose
Also delete this post after the name changes,if possible
"Absolutely trained to the minute"
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
-
Bourbon Rat
- Player Sponsor
- Posts: 5259
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:25 pm
- Location: THE INDEPENDENT STORM
- Contact:
Hmmm ? Wouldn't changing the title of the thread defeat the original purpose it was started for ?
There is something wrong with a judicial system that allows Defence council to taint the image of the victim in most crimes.
Maybe we could move the thread to a non RL section ?
There is something wrong with a judicial system that allows Defence council to taint the image of the victim in most crimes.
Maybe we could move the thread to a non RL section ?
Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake - WC Fields
The games best fullback in court not RL related? Nonsense 
"Absolutely trained to the minute"
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
-
Bourbon Rat
- Player Sponsor
- Posts: 5259
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:25 pm
- Location: THE INDEPENDENT STORM
- Contact:
You have to step away from your RL allegiance for a moment & look at the point TC is making.The Eagle wrote: The games best fullback in court not RL related? Nonsense
NOT the case he has used as an example.
IMHO - TC should have started the thread elsewhere,(but then he wouldn't have got as quick a response - right )
Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake - WC Fields
I agree,but this case is sketchy at best
I hate the way theyre treated to,if found guilty i want his nuts in a jar
but yeah
I hate the way theyre treated to,if found guilty i want his nuts in a jar
but yeah
"Absolutely trained to the minute"
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
1. Possibly I should have started it elsewhere; although I do think it's rugby league relevant as the subject is a high profile player.
2. I think the title should stand: if you change the focus maybe we should devote a new thread to that.
3. Thanks for the updates from silvertails, but be aware that they are commentary by a biased observer with an obvious agenda:
- "Steyne were obviously paranoid about licence renewal at that time."
- "He was obviously embarrassed about his Police statement made about 6 weeks after the event"
- "Said that Brett was drunk. head wobbling. Brett's QC asked if Brett was asleep? Did he pay? did he give directions home? Answers, "yes".
Implication is that Brett was not intoxicated. The cab driver was confused."
Hardly convincing for mine. I've seen people barely able to walk who can give a cabbie directions, and how does he know what the Stein were thinking? It'd take more than one little incident to take the licence from a Sydney icon.
Anyway, my point stands. The fact that the defences' first tactic is to try to massively discredit the witnessess by implying dishonesty, insanity, poor upbringing and and anything else they can think of is a massive fail for Australian justice.
2. I think the title should stand: if you change the focus maybe we should devote a new thread to that.
3. Thanks for the updates from silvertails, but be aware that they are commentary by a biased observer with an obvious agenda:
- "Steyne were obviously paranoid about licence renewal at that time."
- "He was obviously embarrassed about his Police statement made about 6 weeks after the event"
- "Said that Brett was drunk. head wobbling. Brett's QC asked if Brett was asleep? Did he pay? did he give directions home? Answers, "yes".
Implication is that Brett was not intoxicated. The cab driver was confused."
Hardly convincing for mine. I've seen people barely able to walk who can give a cabbie directions, and how does he know what the Stein were thinking? It'd take more than one little incident to take the licence from a Sydney icon.
Anyway, my point stands. The fact that the defences' first tactic is to try to massively discredit the witnessess by implying dishonesty, insanity, poor upbringing and and anything else they can think of is a massive fail for Australian justice.
We must all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately
Its about as unbiased as it can be from a Manly supporter
The socalled insite can be completely ignored
The defenses best go to point is always the credibility of
the accuser,this accuser is somewhat mentally challenged and
been driven around by her father in my view
The guys job is to discredit and misdirect everything,to make the
entire scenario sound entirely stupid,i may not like it but thats how
the judicial system works,i think the crown at the moment is way out
of its league with a hopeless ADA fighting a losing battle against a
top priced lawyer
If things dont turn around for them next week then this entire case
has made a farce of it all,forever leaving a black mark against a possibly
innocent defendant,in rape cases id like to see a few changes,but one of
those would have the accused not being named until found guilty
but looking at it logically,there is no defense to such charges without
trying to rubbish the accuser,make them out to be whatever it is you
want them to be to get your client off,no good way around it i can see
The socalled insite can be completely ignored
The defenses best go to point is always the credibility of
the accuser,this accuser is somewhat mentally challenged and
been driven around by her father in my view
The guys job is to discredit and misdirect everything,to make the
entire scenario sound entirely stupid,i may not like it but thats how
the judicial system works,i think the crown at the moment is way out
of its league with a hopeless ADA fighting a losing battle against a
top priced lawyer
If things dont turn around for them next week then this entire case
has made a farce of it all,forever leaving a black mark against a possibly
innocent defendant,in rape cases id like to see a few changes,but one of
those would have the accused not being named until found guilty
but looking at it logically,there is no defense to such charges without
trying to rubbish the accuser,make them out to be whatever it is you
want them to be to get your client off,no good way around it i can see
"Absolutely trained to the minute"
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
I.e. NOT.The Eagle wrote: Its about as unbiased as it can be from a Manly supporter
No, that's why it doesn't work.The guys job is to discredit and misdirect everything,to make the
entire scenario sound entirely stupid,i may not like it but thats how
the judicial system works,i think the crown at the moment is way out
of its league with a hopeless ADA fighting a losing battle against a
top priced lawyer
We must all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately
Monday
Still the Crowns case. I believe they have 26 witnesses to get through. Another three days of it I've heard until the Defense calls. This may prove to be hard day for Brett as it contains the Police evidence.
OK
The first witness was the neighbour's wife. She stated she saw the dad pushing and shoving Brett. At no times did she hear the word 'bro' uttered by Brett. (important as the dad and mum have said this word was continually used by Brett) She is a Kiwi and would know she said, as it's commonly used in NZ. She described how Brett was being yelled at and being defensive. (weird I thoght for the Crown to use her as I thought she was good for Brett)
Second witness - The complainant's sister. She was rung by the complainant on the night and had the complainant tell her basically what she has claimed Brett did.
No cross by Bellanto
Witness 3 - cop 1
The Crown went through her statement about getting the call out and attending. Talking to dad and the girl. She made the observation that the girl didn't look visibly upset. She went ouside and met Brett and stated his breath smelt of liquor and he was unsteady on his feet. She said that Brett had said, "What do I do"? (important)
Bellanto cross examination - The statement was recorded 8 hours after the incident and could Brett have said, "What did I do"? The cop conceded that he could have said that.
Witness 4 - cop 2
Crown went through his statement which was completed on the 18th, almost twelve days after the incident. He said that he felt that Brett was intoxicated and then said he talked to Brett about footie and club issues for about 15 minutes.
Bellanto cross examined -
Was Brett polite? cop, "yes". Was Brett conversing intelligently? cop "yes".
Witness 5 - Cop 3
Crown went through his statement. He said that Brett appeared intoxicated. He was told to arrest Brett which he did. Brett's comment on being arrested was, "what 's the allegation"? Brett alxo said "what do I do"? Brett asked to get some stuff for his diabetes and the cop went with him upstairs. At no time did he leave his vision. Brett was cooperative and polite. The cop then said he took the girl to RNSH and he observed her laughing and in good spirits in the police car on the way to hospital.
Bellanto cross - "So the girl was laughing and in good spirits"? cop "yes".
Could Brett have said, "What did I do"? instead of "what do I do? cop, "yes".
Witness 6 - cop 4 (supervising sergeant)
She claimed that Brett was in her opinion, moderately intoxicated. Brett asked her, "Can you tell me what I've done"? and asked if he could take a phone and make a call.
She took photos of the area of the incident, the gate etc (this gate is important as the girl claimed it was self locking)
The gate was open when the photos were taken. The cop claimed to not recall whether it was open or shut when she got there, although she said she walked through that gate to gain entry to the complex.
This cop made a second statement nearly twelve days later at the behest of the detectives in which she said that the dad was talking over the girl and interrupting when she was attempting to take a statement from her at the time. Being over-bearing?, asked Bellanto. cop, "yes".
Still the Crowns case. I believe they have 26 witnesses to get through. Another three days of it I've heard until the Defense calls. This may prove to be hard day for Brett as it contains the Police evidence.
OK
The first witness was the neighbour's wife. She stated she saw the dad pushing and shoving Brett. At no times did she hear the word 'bro' uttered by Brett. (important as the dad and mum have said this word was continually used by Brett) She is a Kiwi and would know she said, as it's commonly used in NZ. She described how Brett was being yelled at and being defensive. (weird I thoght for the Crown to use her as I thought she was good for Brett)
Second witness - The complainant's sister. She was rung by the complainant on the night and had the complainant tell her basically what she has claimed Brett did.
No cross by Bellanto
Witness 3 - cop 1
The Crown went through her statement about getting the call out and attending. Talking to dad and the girl. She made the observation that the girl didn't look visibly upset. She went ouside and met Brett and stated his breath smelt of liquor and he was unsteady on his feet. She said that Brett had said, "What do I do"? (important)
Bellanto cross examination - The statement was recorded 8 hours after the incident and could Brett have said, "What did I do"? The cop conceded that he could have said that.
Witness 4 - cop 2
Crown went through his statement which was completed on the 18th, almost twelve days after the incident. He said that he felt that Brett was intoxicated and then said he talked to Brett about footie and club issues for about 15 minutes.
Bellanto cross examined -
Was Brett polite? cop, "yes". Was Brett conversing intelligently? cop "yes".
Witness 5 - Cop 3
Crown went through his statement. He said that Brett appeared intoxicated. He was told to arrest Brett which he did. Brett's comment on being arrested was, "what 's the allegation"? Brett alxo said "what do I do"? Brett asked to get some stuff for his diabetes and the cop went with him upstairs. At no time did he leave his vision. Brett was cooperative and polite. The cop then said he took the girl to RNSH and he observed her laughing and in good spirits in the police car on the way to hospital.
Bellanto cross - "So the girl was laughing and in good spirits"? cop "yes".
Could Brett have said, "What did I do"? instead of "what do I do? cop, "yes".
Witness 6 - cop 4 (supervising sergeant)
She claimed that Brett was in her opinion, moderately intoxicated. Brett asked her, "Can you tell me what I've done"? and asked if he could take a phone and make a call.
She took photos of the area of the incident, the gate etc (this gate is important as the girl claimed it was self locking)
The gate was open when the photos were taken. The cop claimed to not recall whether it was open or shut when she got there, although she said she walked through that gate to gain entry to the complex.
This cop made a second statement nearly twelve days later at the behest of the detectives in which she said that the dad was talking over the girl and interrupting when she was attempting to take a statement from her at the time. Being over-bearing?, asked Bellanto. cop, "yes".
"Absolutely trained to the minute"
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
Afternoon. There's a lot of down time in this.
Witness 7. Cop - 5 Custody Sergeant Dee Why.
He observed Brett and judged him to be 'moderately intoxicated'. Time in 9.09pm, released about 2.30am. No charge.
He said that Brett went to the toilet twice, but said that police procedure is to observe people in custody at all times (tell that to all aboriginals in custody). Anyway, the Crown attempted, by introducing the fact that Brett went to the toilet, the inference that he could have washed his hands.
Bellanto counted by taking the cop through the duties and procedures of people in custody.
Witness 8. Cop - 6. Detective someone (who looked like he was about 18)
This detective thought Brett was sober enough to interview. By this time Geoff Bellew was in attendance. The Crown played a DVD of the interview. Brett looked a little disheveled, but he'd been up for almost 20 hours. Brett agreed to swabs being taken from his mouth and fingers, no problem even when advised of his right to decline. Bellew advised him not to make a statement which is his right (The jury were told that by the judge). They left the Police Station.
Witness 9. Cop - 7. Lead detective.
The girl was re-interviewed. He got all the CCCTV footage from various hotels and bars around the Corso of the night. On the 10th Brett re-arrested and charged. No statement given.
Bellanto cross examination. "Would you consider the DNA connection between the complainant and the accused is a PRIMARY source for investigation"? detective, Yes.
As you can see it finished early. David Williams attended court all day, much to the interest of a couple of jury members and others. The Crown will call another cop tomorrow, who couldn't be there today, three doctors, two from the RNSH and the Psychiatrist. This will conclude the Crown case. Prediction is that the Crown will finish either tomorrow afternoon, or lunchtime Wednesday. The the Defense gets to kick off.
Witness 7. Cop - 5 Custody Sergeant Dee Why.
He observed Brett and judged him to be 'moderately intoxicated'. Time in 9.09pm, released about 2.30am. No charge.
He said that Brett went to the toilet twice, but said that police procedure is to observe people in custody at all times (tell that to all aboriginals in custody). Anyway, the Crown attempted, by introducing the fact that Brett went to the toilet, the inference that he could have washed his hands.
Bellanto counted by taking the cop through the duties and procedures of people in custody.
Witness 8. Cop - 6. Detective someone (who looked like he was about 18)
This detective thought Brett was sober enough to interview. By this time Geoff Bellew was in attendance. The Crown played a DVD of the interview. Brett looked a little disheveled, but he'd been up for almost 20 hours. Brett agreed to swabs being taken from his mouth and fingers, no problem even when advised of his right to decline. Bellew advised him not to make a statement which is his right (The jury were told that by the judge). They left the Police Station.
Witness 9. Cop - 7. Lead detective.
The girl was re-interviewed. He got all the CCCTV footage from various hotels and bars around the Corso of the night. On the 10th Brett re-arrested and charged. No statement given.
Bellanto cross examination. "Would you consider the DNA connection between the complainant and the accused is a PRIMARY source for investigation"? detective, Yes.
As you can see it finished early. David Williams attended court all day, much to the interest of a couple of jury members and others. The Crown will call another cop tomorrow, who couldn't be there today, three doctors, two from the RNSH and the Psychiatrist. This will conclude the Crown case. Prediction is that the Crown will finish either tomorrow afternoon, or lunchtime Wednesday. The the Defense gets to kick off.
"Absolutely trained to the minute"
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
Phil "Gus" Gould
"I will personally pay for those to touchies to go and visit OPSM for a checkup,id thought we'd reverted to gridiron for a moment there"
Desmond "Sorry" Hasler
-
Bourbon Rat
- Player Sponsor
- Posts: 5259
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:25 pm
- Location: THE INDEPENDENT STORM
- Contact:
What I hate..................................
Is when lazy journos can't put the right photo up for their stories.Allow me to introduce.
Although I did PMSL when I saw it 
Is when lazy journos can't put the right photo up for their stories.Allow me to introduce.
Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake - WC Fields