Sea Eagle Lach
You don’t have a horse? I recall you’ve previously had strong views about prosecutions of sexual offences in some other thread, and it seems you have a particular interest in the area of allegations of sexual misconduct.A couple of points.
1. “Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence”, an old quote by Dr Carl Sagan, means, in a very simple term, that, if there is lack of evidence of presence of a thing, does not always conclude to the absence of that thing totally. Just because he put his finger up her jutz doesn't mean he left any DNA behind (if it happened that is).
2. There are only two persons who really know what happened. The girl who was the 'victim' and Brett Stewart. The dads opinion means bugger all. From memory he had a pretty poor relationship with his daughter so for all we know he said what he said to spite her. Stranger things have happened.
3. It would be unbelievably efficient of the NSW Police and the NSW Health labs to get DNA, have it tested and analysed within a single week. Doesn't sound quite right.
I don't have any horses in this Brett Stewart race. He was found not guilty in criminal court. But that doesn't mean he didn't do it. Plenty of guilty people out there go free. You might find a good parallel case in what is now happening with Ben Roberts-Smith. He sued for defamation and it's turned out really bad for him.
My point is that suing might actually be a really bad idea for Brett.
As for Brett suing, at a guess he’d be many years out of time even if there had been any action available. I think he got a big settlement from some news organisations at the time.
As for you suggesting Brett may have been guilty after all, to say that is poor form, and that’s putting it mildly. Pull your head in is my suggestion.