News: Sins of the Father

[wombatgc]

RE: Sins of the Father

You're being disingenuous, the intent of the original post was to name the guy. Pure and simple. If anyone wants to find out who he is then I'm sure they can, it didn't take Bones too long to dig it up.

You know that, I know that. I meant legality wise (for this site). Bones didn't say they were the same person . This sociapath's name shouldn't be suppressed. He will continue to ruin ppl's lives (including those kids) if he is not outed and stopped.

 

[lismore_fan]

RE: Sins of the Father

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1111119127871

Rotten to the core

By Rebecca Wilson
The Daily Telegraph
March 14, 2009 12:00AM


The weak board ridiculously asked the team's coach what he wanted. Not surprisingly, Des Hasler opted for the win-at-all-costs option and the board bought it. Even a gaggle of famous female fans came out in support of Brett Stewart without having been present on the night or hearing the facts of the story.

Hearing the facts of the story...

No better words should echo in Wilson's head, over and over and over!

Great words to remember for any jounalist!

 

[bob dylan]

She would be the biggest slag in media history.

I reckon her name should be barred from use on these boards.

 

[bones]

RE: Sins of the Father

EDIT - The identity of the family were supressed by the court during the trial and I also assume that was the reason behind not naming them in this article Bones. They may also wish to remain anonymous for the sake of their children , which we should respect.

Those inclined can search the internet themselves if they are desperate to know this guys identity. Otherwise I casn see no value in making making allegations about his identity in this forum .

I'm sure you understand.

I think that is an over-reaction. Bones wasn't talking about the person's name that was suppressed, he was talking about a guy that owed thousands in rent and was on fraud charges. Then said make up your own mind. I don't remember anywhere that Bones said the persons were one and the same. I don't see why we should have to kowtow to a suppression order from the court on a football forum. the more people know of this evil pricks real identity, the better chance those kids will have .

You're being disingenuous, the intent of the original post was to name the guy. Pure and simple. If anyone wants to find out who he is then I'm sure they can, it didn't take Bones too long to dig it up.

It was easy. Just googled 'Manly Daily, rent fraud, bounced cheques'

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

EDIT - The identity of the family were supressed by the court during the trial and I also assume that was the reason behind not naming them in this article Bones. They may also wish to remain anonymous for the sake of their children , which we should respect.

Those inclined can search the internet themselves if they are desperate to know this guys identity. Otherwise I casn see no value in making making allegations about his identity in this forum .

I'm sure you understand.

I think that is an over-reaction. Bones wasn't talking about the person's name that was suppressed, he was talking about a guy that owed thousands in rent and was on fraud charges. Then said make up your own mind. I don't remember anywhere that Bones said the persons were one and the same. I don't see why we should have to kowtow to a suppression order from the court on a football forum. the more people know of this evil pricks real identity, the better chance those kids will have .

Wombat while your view is not entirely without merit, I don't recommend you testing the resolve of Judge Williams and I'm certain he fully intends his order to extend to football forums. The point of the suppression order of course is to protect the juvenile.

If the Herald article is half accurate it is only a matter of time before the father is brought to account for some of his awful actions.

---

Just shows what problems can occur with elements of the law. The fact it was conceded Stewart was there at the scene & that some exchange including contact occurred between the parties might mean prima facie. I regard that as an error and the case should never have past comittal stage. What other evidence did the prosecution have other than the allegation.

Jatz I think you’ll find neither being present at the scene nor ‘some exchange including contact’ amount to a prima facie case in a sexual assault allegation. I expect the problem was indeed ‘the allegation’ - in other words, the evidence of the complainant that a sexual assault did occur.

If you are saying the finding of a prima facie case was wrong you are saying that the accused should never even have been called upon to deny the allegation because it was intrinsically unbelievable.
Or maybe you really think Tony Bellanto QC called Brett to give evidence at his trial just for the hell of it?

 

[Phantar]

I recall that less than a week after the affair began (the following Friday), there was a report in the media that the Police had found no Stewart DNA on the girl - with emphasis on the areas where she claimed he touched her. That should have been setting off alarm bells, at the very least, with the gaggle of journalists who were on the attack.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Just shows what problems can occur with elements of the law. The fact it was conceded Stewart was there at the scene & that some exchange including contact occurred between the parties might mean prima facie. I regard that as an error and the case should never have past comittal stage. What other evidence did the prosecution have other than the allegation.

Jatz I think you’ll find neither being present at the scene nor ‘some exchange including contact’ amount to a prima facie case in a sexual assault allegation. I expect the problem was indeed ‘the allegation’ - in other words, the evidence of the complainant that a sexual assault did occur.

If you are saying the finding of a prima facie case was wrong you are saying that the accused should never even have been called upon to deny the allegation because it was intrinsically unbelievable.
Or maybe you really think Tony Bellanto QC called Brett to give evidence at his trial just for the hell of it?

What I am saying is that wether you take the allegation on its own or add the fact Stewart "was there" & "some contact did occur" there was not enough evidence to proceed to prosecution.

Not sure where your going with the rest of your post.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Not going anywhere Jatz. You're the one who keeps saying there was no prima facie case.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

You're the one who keeps saying there was no prima facie case.

Just on the off chance you think there was, why would that be.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I followed DSM5s excellent reports of the trial but I don't know what happened at committal stage.

I know that prima facie case simply means evidence on which a properly instructed jury might reasonably convict. If someone is prepared to sit in the witrness box under oath and make a serious allegation, that is normally something that demands an answer from the person accused.

It is almost unheard of (so far as I know) for an accused to present evidence at committal stage. It is all about the prosecution case. The only way there could be a finding of no prima facie was if the court was satisfied there was no way a jury could ever believe the girl. If there was a possibility that a jury might believe her, then there was a case to answer.

Similarly, if at the close of the prosecution case in the trial there was no case to answer, the defence would not have had to call any evidence. The defence did call evidence, and the jury, having heard all the evidence, took very little time to decide there was no way they could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the offence the offence was committed.

I agree that other cases with similarly flimsy rospects of success have not always proceeded. Hence my belief that this case proceeded, not because the DPP believed there was a good chance of a conviction, but for political reasons. Namely, so they could not be accused of shielding another league star.

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

RE: Sins of the Father

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1111119127871

removed by Dan (sorry guys)

so the Telecrap have deleted the above article now

 

[Cameron]

RE: Sins of the Father

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1111119127871

Rotten to the core

Removed by Dan (sorry guys)

so the Telecrap have deleted the above article now

That's ok berks we have it here.
They are filthy snakes at the telegraph.

 

[DSM5]

SER8 I did report on the committal stage on this site. At that stage, I thought the allegation was extremely wobbly. At that time the Prosecution called the girl's psychiatrist. When listening to his evidence (suppressed) regarding his interactions with the girl, before and after the alleged event, I thought the prosecution wouldn't proceed. His evidence was so damning of her reliability and mental state. Interestingly, he wasn't called by the Prosecution at the trial. The father didn't appear at the committal, as he was reportedly overseas. As I've stated before, this prosecution was unjustified on an evidentiary basis. It was obviously unsustainable. Politically though, there was another agenda. To many dogs were howling.

---

Including our very own Gallop.

 

[MadMarcus]

RE: Sins of the Father

Even a gaggle of famous female fans came out in support of Brett Stewart without having been present on the night or hearing the facts of the story.

How's this sentence for irony - Rebecca Wilson criticising the Eagles Angels for supporting Snake because they were not present and hadn't heard the facts of the story, as she (who was also not present) pens a hate piece without having made any serious enquiries about the facts herself...

 

[COMMANDER]

Really goes to show the quality of journalism we have in Australia. This majority of this article could have been written weeks after the incident, not years.

Many of these journalists sit on their intellectual high horse and sling innuendo from behind their keyboards yet as a group are re-knowned for their alcohol and drug fuelled lifestyles.

These people would be fit to hold Brett Stewarts gear bag.

Support the Snake.

 

[wombatgc]

RE: Sins of the Father

I would disagree about it being an over-reaction. I didn't see what was put up or edit the post, but the thinking behind it is sound. Dan, as owner, doesn't have the financial or time resources to get caught up in a legal stoush. Having been through a couple of these it can turn a life upside down. I agree with your end sentiment about the kids but I can't support jeopardising the site. Feel free to put it up on your FB account if you want 🙂

You didn't see it or hear it, but you'll jump in for your two-bobs worth regardless. :huh:
I'll not say anymore on this topic as I am still seathing over the article. I just want to give Brett a big man hug!

 

[PJ]

RE: Sins of the Father

Funny how some are happy to believe a telegraph article when I suits them.

Strange world indeed.

I for one won't be reading it, sounds like its more dribble.

One of the most ridiculously stupid posts ive ever read on this site.

Are you so busy trying to score a point against some on here who might over react when a newspaper writes a negative story on Manly or just blinded to the overwhelming facts surrounding the Stewart case, supporting his innocence ?

Totally agree Jatz. Bob Dylan you have to be kidding?

 

[bob dylan]

Yawn.

Harden up and think for yourself. Better still go over the Farrar thread and have a whinge, it seems to be attracting that sort of reaction tonight.

The reason I dont wont to read the article, is for just the same reasons as I never read much of the Hasler, Foran, TRex crap that was printed at the time of those dramas. Or Bretts case for that matter, the only thing I really read about it was here thanks to DSM5's daily reports.

 

[PJ]

How's agreeing with another statement on your comment not thinking for myself? You have every right to voice your opinion as I do mine, but atleast get the name of the publication it was printed in right.

 

[ManlyBacker]

RE: Sins of the Father

I would disagree about it being an over-reaction. I didn't see what was put up or edit the post, but the thinking behind it is sound. Dan, as owner, doesn't have the financial or time resources to get caught up in a legal stoush. Having been through a couple of these it can turn a life upside down. I agree with your end sentiment about the kids but I can't support jeopardising the site. Feel free to put it up on your FB account if you want 🙂

You didn't see it or hear it, but you'll jump in for your two-bobs worth regardless. :huh:
I'll not say anymore on this topic as I am still seathing over the article. I just want to give Brett a big man hug!

You are entitled to your opinion but I don't get why you are getting upset. It was made clear by you that the person involved was named in this thread. You won't suffer any consequences of that but Dan and others may. I've been here for 8 years and know of the times that legal action has been threatened so please respect why we unfortunately do what we do and say. Your belief in the justification of outing doesn't stop the reality of the legal consequences. Peace.