Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Berkeley_Eagle, Sep 30, 2010.
BRETT Stewart yesterday faced and beat his greatest off-field challenge.
Read the full article
" Stewart was unfairly tarnished because he was a football player"
Gee, I wonder who did that?
In all fairness, I challange you to find many bad articles written by Ritchie on the case. He seemed to be fairly balanced in the whole odeal and actually write sympathetic in Brett's favour. Here is one such one:
Its about the Player's association backing Brett.
isnt Ritchie a manly fan? or is that another one of them i'm thinkng of?
He grew up in Forestville but dont think he isa supporter
Cheers wheel, I remember reading somewhere that one of the higher profile hacks was a Sea Eagles boy, may have been someone else
Richie is a Sharks fan.
But I'd agree of all the Journo's I think he was the most measured.
But as much as I'd like to think so, I am not sure about the Verdict restoring his reputation...one would only have to read the many blogs out there yesterday underneath the stories to realise that there's still a lot that reckon he got off just because he's a celebrity.
I'd say 70% agreed and maybe 30% didn't, although I doubt we'd ever change that 30% unless the others were charged and found guilty of a set up....and even then some wouldn't beleive that.
But in saying that I think he can now move on, and I hope he does.
I'm pretty sure he's the Manly fan, and Rotherfield is the Sharks fan..
Yeah Rothfield is 100% sharks, just didnt know about Ritchie
Fro - Ritchie is a local but I believe he supported the bears (1st time I've ever heard him linked to sharks!?). He has still appeared to be fairly pro Manly over the years.
I think Greg Pritchard is a Manly supporter.
sweet Bradza, that name is the one i have heard. cheers
Ritchie's a Bulldogs man.
Ritchie's nickname is Bulldog because he's butt ugly not because he follows them.
Ah yes he might be a Dogs fan after all, I thought I read he was aÂ Sharkie but the name suggest he's a Canterbury supporter.
A different article, different author, with an identical heading.Â Didn't submit through submit articles Dan because I assumed it would be taken as already posted.Â But it deserves its own thread really:
Seems the Telegraph are keen to assert that Brett's reputation hasn't been tarnished by them.
Verdict restores Brett Stewart's reputation
Â Â * Lisa Davies
Â Â * From: The Daily Telegraph
Â Â * September 30, 2010 12:00AM
NRL POSTER boy Brett Stewart is set to reveal all on The Footy Show tonight after spending his life savings clearing his name.
The Manly Sea Eagles rugby league player was yesterday found not guilty in a Sydney court of two counts of sexually assaulting a teenage neighbour outside his unit block in Manly, in Sydney's north, on March 6 last year.
Stewart and his family, including brother and fellow Sea Eagles player Glenn Stewart, left court via a rear exit, evading the cameras and guaranteeing an exclusive story for the highest bidder.
The Nine Network last night promoted what it billed as an exclusive interview with Stewart to run on The Footy Show tonight.
Sources close to the player said Stewart, who is understood to earn about $400,000 a year, spent his life savings on defending the case and was now hoping to recoup some of the money.
Stewart employed Tony Bellanto QC and legal sources say the top silk, along with a junior barrister and instructing solicitor, would cost almost $300,000 for the 10-day trial and two-day committal hearing.
The verdict meant the end of 18 months of hell for the one-time face of rugby league.
Stewart sat in the beechwood dock of the District Court for the past two weeks, quietly seething that he was there at all.
Because what Stewart knows - but a court order prevents any media outlet from revealing - is that there have always been severe doubts about the veracity of the claims made against him.
The girl who made the allegations suffers from a mental illness but the extent of her condition, treatment and her symptoms cannot be published by court order.
Trial Judge Jonathan Williams felt it necessary to urge the jury in his summing up of the case to tread carefully when weighing up the reliability of the teenager's testimony in light of her psychiatric condition.
Her father's evidence also drew stunned looks from the jury - a convicted fraudster who the judge described as a "volatile man" happily admitted to the court that he once had to "look in his wallet" to work out which name he was using on any given day.
Stewart's acquittal officially cleared his name, but it came at a price - not least of all, legal fees topping an estimated $300,000.
When March 6 dawned last year, Stewart was the man.
He and his Manly teammates had won the NRL Grand Final the previous September, gone on to win the World Club challenge, and he had been named by the NRL as the face of the game.
He had been singled out by the sport's administration not only for his on-field talent, but also his exemplary off-field behaviour. Stewart was the one kids should aspire to be.
He attended the club's season launch, admitting to having up to eight drinks in a seven-hour period.
And, as he told the jury, he was exhausted.
It had been a long season, a gruelling trip to the UK and he was about to do it all again.
The media commitments alone were unrelenting. As some of his team prepared to kick on into the night, he decided to head home.
In a cab, he called his girlfriend Jaime Baker at 7.23pm. She was waiting at home so the couple could spend a quiet evening together for the first time in weeks.
The differing versions of what happened next have similarities.
Approaching the gate to his townhouse complex, Stewart and the teenager saw each other, the latter loitering in clothes the footballer thought might have been her pyjamas.
He claims that she spoke to him first, asking: "Are you Brett Stewart?"
In court, the girl denied knowing who he was, but did admit to having seen his face on television.
Stewart said he then asked her: "What are you doing?" and she replied: "Smoking."
Stewart said he then asked: "What are you doing that for, that's not good for you."
He told the court he has never tolerated the smell of cigarettes.
The girl said she turned to go, but Stewart called her back, tongue-kissing her twice and touched her genitals.
But Stewart said the reverse was true - after the smoking discussion, she turned to him and "went for" his arm, saying "I just want a kiss" and lunging toward him.
When he told her no, he did what he had been taught, he said, walking towards the letterbox as the girl vanished, to "let the dust settle" in order to ensure the situation did not escalate.
By their verdicts, the jury clearly found Stewart's version far more believable.
But, in those seconds, the footballer's life became the plot of a horror film.
His eyes filled with tears as he described a police officer arriving a short time later: "The officer said he had to arrest me."
In an instant, everything he had strived for slipped away - for a while. But yesterday, after an 18-month battle, it took the jury little over an hour to acquit him of all charges, one of their number even shedding tears of support along with Stewart's family.
Stewart evaded the waiting media after court, as rumours of a paid TV deal swirled.
Asked how Stewart felt, his solicitor Ian Byrne said: "They always were confident that this would be the result but obviously [the Stewart family] are very grateful."
Dean Ritchie is who Matty Orford can thank for his Dally M award, but he isn't a Manly supporter and he isn't a Sharks supporter.Â I did read a blog he did earlier this year and he did say who he supported but for the life of me I can't remember.Â It was either Dogs or Bunnies.Â Either way he is one of the better, (not anti-manly) journo's the telegraph have got.
Dean Ritchie is a Roosters supporter, despite hailing from Forestville. Maybe got caught up in the euphoria surrounding their 74/75 wins and has followed them ever since.
So far we have it that he supports the Sharks, Dogs, Rabbits, Roosters, Bears and Us, not bad for one guy! Still less two faced then your average journalist.
Love this quote in the Lisa Davies story above:
"Because what Stewart knows - but a court order prevents any media outlet from revealing - is that there have always been severe doubts about the veracity of the claims made against him."
Thats right it is the Roosters.Â I do remember him saying that.Â
Separate names with a comma.