DSM5

[Matabele]

Any chance you could go back through your notes to see specifically what was testified as follows:

1.  Police testimony about Brett Stewart's so-called intoxication.
2.  Evidence from Manly Wharf and licensing police about Brett's state and the supposed request he leave the premises.

Also, at what time did he leave the bar and what time did the alleged offense take place?

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Mata's...he'll be in Melbourne with the troops this weekend and not sure if he's going down today or tomorrow, so if he doesn't answer you'll know why.

 

[Matabele]

You just can't rely on people like DSM5 in a crisis.  😉

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

He's "semi" reliable

 

[Jatz Crackers]

He's \"semi\" reliable

He had a "semi" with the not guilty verdict.

 

[swoop]

This might help,

http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/brett-stewart-exclusive-interview/xo28mqr

---

Post  automatically merged: [time]1299734474[/time]

---

In the interview he denies being heavy intoxicated and said he only had few beers and was always in control. To this day Gallop/NRL have not once asked for Brett's version of the incident.

 

[OneEyedEagle]

Even if Snake was intoxicated how can that be in breach of the players code of conduct. Gallop should just admit he got it wrong and should apologise and reinstate the $100K.

 

[Cameron]

[quote author=Mark from Brisbane link=topic=186761.msg321533#msg321533 date=1299732554]
He's \"semi\" reliable

He had a "semi" with the not guilty verdict.
[/quote]why a semi
I was fully ---- when I heard the verdict

 

[DSM5]

Mata, the Licensing police were never called to give evidence, nor any staff member of the Wharf bar.  There was CCTV footage of Brett walking through the Wharf bar and slipping.  The Prosecutor attempted to infer that this was evidence of intoxication, but the Judge laughed this away.  There was also coverage of when the players sort of 'conga dancing behind the bar, although Brett did not appear on this clip.  There was no evidence put forward that Brett was asked to leave the Wharf bar.  He was asked to leave the Steyne Hotel however later in the evening when he walked there with three or four others, including the young girl from the club.  On the way there he was stopped on the Corso by a fan and talked footie with her and her kid.  The Steyne security guy said that Brett spilt a small bit of beer and as the Hotel was under scrutiny from the LP, they were just being careful.  He didn't say that Brett was intoxicated.  There was CCCTV coverage of Brett and his brother standing outside waiting for a cab.  Members of the public walked past, nothing untoward happened.  The cab driver said that Brett eyes rolled and he thought he was a little drunk.  He did not know that Brett was a diabetic and stated he got out of the cab, paid the fare and waited while the cab turned before walking across the road.  Not the actions of a drunk person one would think.  During the police testimony no police said that Brett was intoxicated.  They all stated in their evidence that he carried on conversations with them about footie and the clubs ructions.  
And what's all this 'semi' reliable stuff?  I'm totally reliable.            

 

[Duff]

[quote author=Jatz Crackers link=topic=186761.msg321541#msg321541 date=1299733700]
[quote author=Mark from Brisbane link=topic=186761.msg321533#msg321533 date=1299732554]
He's \"semi\" reliable

He had a "semi" with the not guilty verdict.
[/quote]why a semi
I was fully ---- when I heard the verdict
[/quote]

I'm sure there's a ladyboy joke in that somewhere.