News: Convicted criminal ushers Brett to trial

[Matabele]

<p>NRL star Brett Stewart has been committed to stand trial over the alleged sexual assault of a 17-year-old girl.</p>
<p>Deputy Chief Magistrate Paul Cloran in the Downing Centre Local Court found today that there was enough evidence in the case for a jury to decide Stewart’s guilt or innocence.</p>
<p />


<a href="http://www.silvertails.net/news/4645-convicted-criminal-ushers-brett-to-trial.html">Read the full article</a>

 

[Matabele]

Headlines, such a wonderful thing.

 

[niccipops]

It's interesting how the news is being orchestrated for the public.
Different articles have stated : 1. there was enough evidence in the case for a jury to decide Stewart's guilt.
2. there was enough evidence in the case for a jury to decide Stewart's guilt or innocence.

Quite selective these reporters.

       

 

[byso]

I wonder if the club would have stood him down while it went to trial?

Probably best the decision was already made for him.

 

[missing_something]

I wonder if the club would have stood him down while it went to trial?

Probably best the decision was already made for him.

I wonder if the club should have just sacked him at the time of the incident - the sharks did it with bird and we probably should have done the same thing also, forgetting who is and how a good a player he is, there was grounds just on what happened @ the preseason launch alone to do so.

 

[mwsneagle]

I didn't think Brett did anything untoward at the season launch...
If it was the reported refusal of more alcohol, from memory (apologies if wrong - it's not what it used to be), no club/pub openly confirmed it and the refusal at the launch was the refusal of Max's card behind the bar as it was now open to the public and would have been too hard for staff to police?

 

[Canteen Worker]

[quote author=byso link=topic=182772.msg256248#msg256248 date=1269227838]
I wonder if the club would have stood him down while it went to trial?

Probably best the decision was already made for him.

I wonder if the club should have just sacked him at the time of the incident - the sharks did it with bird and we probably should have done the same thing also, forgetting who is and how a good a player he is, there was grounds just on what happened @ the preseason launch alone to do so.
[/quote]Big difference here. Bird lied to the police and the club about what happened and actively tried to cover it up. This was sustained in court. In the process he tried to mislead the law, implicating his innocent mate. Bird was also facing other separate charges, which he since has been cleared off but was a serial offender.

Brett Stewart has claimed his innocence, has been supported by his club and until he faces trial he is presumed innocent.

Clubs often back away from these things due to concern how it might affect the sponsors and perceptions of the club. That Manly has stood rock solid behind Stewart speaks volumes in my view.