Stewart Case updates - no speculation please

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
Status
Not open for further replies.
For all of those reading this topic and awaiting further updates. The update is expected some time after or around 1:30
 
Ok here we go.
Robbo, Wolfman, King and Zorba in attendance.  Zorba in jeans, what is he thinking looking like a sack of potatoes.
Anyway
Witness - cop 7.
Her statement was signed on the 14th March.  Interesting that cops can remember stuff long after the event. 
She gave a description of the night, how Brett looked when she arrived and how the complainant and her dad looked.  The cop said that Brett looked dishevelled, complainant pale, and dad not calm, worked up, puffed and sweaty.
The cop talked to complainant at the unit, wrote notes .  She made sure the complainant didn't drink or go to the toilet.  Her Police partner took Brett to Dee Why PS while she waited with the commplainant at the unit complex for her partner to return.  She then took the complainant to Royal North Shore Hospital in the police car.
While in the car she stated that the complainant was calm, and that she had conversations with her.  When she was at the hospital she said that the complainant showed her her upper arm and the cop said she couldn't see any bruising on the arm.  Remember the complainant said that Brett grabbed her arm.
Bellanto then cross examined her.
Bellanto asked the cop whether there was a lot of stuff on the concrete area where the complainant sat cross legged.  Cop, yes there were bark chips and other small bits of refuse.
The cop was asked whether she took notes of the conversations she had with the complainant in the police car on the way to hospital.  Cop - No.
Bellanto asked the cop whether she took any other notes other than at the unit and hospital.  Cop - No.
Bellanto then took the cop through her notebook that she wrote in at the units when talking to the complainant.  In her notebook, where she wrote notes about the conversation she had with the girl, the cop admitted she didn't write down any reference to 'digital, or 'fingers in vagina' nor any notes regarding the complainant saying anything about 'tongues in mouths'.  She said she didn't ask.  (remarkable omission really, as this is the crucial point of the whole police presence)  She appeared flustered and evasive about this point. 
She stated that her statement was compiled over three locations, unit, car ride and hospital. 
The point is that this cop, who was in charge of the scene, when asking the complainant what happened, did not ellict from her any mention of an assault. 
Bellanto asked her if the dad was talking over her while she talked to the complainant.  The cop denied this. 
Interesting that other cops have stated that the dad was yelling, bullying and overbearing while they were at the unit.. 
The cop said she exited and entered the unit complex through the pedestrian gateway. 
Finished with the police witnesses.
Legal arguement then ensured about the admissability of the doctor's testimony to come regarding the red mark near the complainant's vagina.  Bellanto argued that there are any number of reasons for a red mark to appear, medication, bruising from sitting, etc.  To speculate on the one cause, namely Brett's finger, would be prejudicial, lack probity in fact.  He raised the point that the complainant hadn't raised any point of pressure being applied to this area in her testimony. 
I figured this didn't have any legs, and the judge agreed with me.
Bruise and red mark in.
From 2pm we have three doctors testifying, the first is the examining doctor at RNSH, the second is a defense doctor commenting on the first doctors methodology and the third will be another commenting on the second. 
Then Dr Friend the psychiatrist.  Hopefully the Crown's case wrapped up this afternoon, but I doubt it.   
 
How on earth are so many people contradicting each other.

Its almost like theres been so many different stories that they aren't all on the same page.
 
Shouldn't that witness be "Witness 10.  Cop - 8"?
 
Thanks Jethro, I knew I'd get myself into trouble with the numbers.  I haven't left any witnesses out though.  Des Hasler arrived in court.  I had him removed as he's a witness for Brett and he would have compromised himself by staying.   
Anyway here goes this afternoons show.

First doctor up, Dr Hayes from RNSH,  sexual assault medical officer.  She examined the complainant when she was brought in by the cops.  She gave a disjointed account of what the complainant said happened to her which didn't make much sense.  (Times were wrong and there was a bizarre comment.  The report was incorrect in parts, admitted Dr Hayes under cross).   

The Crown led her through what is the protocols of an examination at her work place, the taking of swabs etc, oral and vaginal. 
This doctor has 30 years of looking at vaginas she stated, but this trial is the first one where she has given evidence. (gasp) 
She went into the medical examination of the complainant.
A suppression order was sought by the Crown and granted by the Judge on the medical examination testimony of this doctor, so sorry I can't go into details, except to say that the evidence of the causes of a 'red mark near the vagina is critically important.   
What I can tell you is that at RNSH they do not take photos of victims.  They rely on the drawings of doctors.  Sort of what you all saw, and the boys sniggered over in year 10.  What this doctor argued, is that photos are not 'best practise'.  What she meant by that was unclear.  What I can also say is that there was a discussion between Bellanto and the doctor over the meaning of 'may' in relation to the causes of the red mark.  She said "varying degrees".  Bellanto pulled out a Webster and read out that 'may' means 'expressing uncertainty'.  This doctor, under cross from Bellanto, appeared unsure of herself at times and at other times appeared to get aggressive.  I was concerned about her testimony, but on reflection she was not such a good witness.  Some of the stuff she talked about drew gasps from the court room.  Partly disbelief about what she said, and partly mirth at her aggressiveness. 

Anyway I'll get some clarification tomorrow re her testimony but I'd be surprised if you get any more from other sources.  They might have deeper pockets than I.  More media were in today than the last couple of days.

The next witness was Dr Christine Norrie for the defense (not suppressed).  On for ten minutes, and on again tomorrow.
She commented on the report from Dr Hayes regarding the red mark (down near the vagina, but not in it) as described by Dr Hayes.  She commented that the red mark could have many causes.  She said that Dr Hayes evidence is contradictory.
More tomorrow and the Crown will end then.  Two more doctors, including this one and the psych.       
 
First thing.  I spoke to Brett's barrister this morning who told me that even if Brett takes the stand (which I'm reliably informed he will) the defense gets to sum up last.  What happens is that at the end, the Crown goes first, then the defense, then the judge instructs on the law.

OK her we go.
There was discussion between the judge and Bellanto with regard to the red mark/bruise on the arm and the discussion of 'tenderness' in the Hayes testimony.  Nothing resolved.

Dr Norrie, Bellanto's expert witness resumed her evidence from yesterday.
She commented that the redness causes were not explored in Hayes's report.
She stated there might be other causes.

Bellanto "Can you say what caused the mark"?
Norrie    "No"
Bellanto  "Are there a number of causes"
Norrie     "Yes"

Bellanto  "Would you expect to see finger nail marks or scratches on the vulva if finger was inserted"?
Norrie     "Yes"

The Crown then cross-examined Norrie.
He asked whether the mark could have been inflicted by the defendant, Brett.  Norrie answered, It could have.
This was during an aggressive discussion between Norrie and the Crown on terminology she used in her report.
THIS PROSECUTOR HASN'T GIVEN UP.
He stated that Hayes had the advantage of seeing the complainant.  Norrie had to agree.

Next Witness  Dr Edwards, Hayes superior at RNSH.
She commented on Hayes's report and Norrie's response and .
She agreed with the findings of Hayes.
Bellanto cross-examined and asked Dr Edwards if it is not possible to determine the exact cause of the redness.  She agreed that it was not, a little reluctantly.
Bellanto asked her if it would have been a good idea to take a photo of the bruise.  She fudged on that, but the judge intervened and said in his opinion, it would have been common sense.  (laughter)

Witness - Analysist at the laboratory that does DNA.
She was provided with samples taken from the compainant and Brett by the RNSH and the cops.
She said that fingernail swabs and samples of saliva and tape samples of underpants and pants were examined for DNA matches.

Bellanto  "The bottom line is no DNA of either was found on the other"?
Expert    "That is correct".

This afternoon the psychiatrist will be on the stand and that will end the Crown's case.  More around 5.00pm.      
 
Sorry all about the delay but I was having trouble accessing the site.
Anyway here goes.

There was an application that the psychiatrists evidence be heard 'in camera', meaning that all persons except the press were to leave the court while he was on.

Anyway of course as I'm press, I stayed.  Unfortunately his evidence can't be reported on here, suppressed, except to say we're allowed to say she has 'schizo-effective disorder'..  Sorry everyone, that's all I can report on his testimony.  I will seek further clarification on this matter tomorrow.

Anyway after his lengthy time in the box, he was followed by

Dr Anderson, forensic medical officer.
He gave a statement that he took swabs from Brett at Dee Why and that Brett was cooperative.  He stated that Brett had short fingernails.  The Crown was attempting to imply that that was a reason possibly, for the absence of her DNA under his nails, or his DNA on her.  ( I would counter by saying the scientist from the forensic laboratory said that none of his DNA was found on her tight underwear and panties.  If his hand had moved down there as alleged, there surely would have been skin or hair DNA from the tape samples.)

Anyway an interesting development occurred;
The Crown called Jaimie Baker, Brett's girlfriend.
There was argument between the Crown, who were reluctant to call her, and Bellanto who said that as she was a Crown witness for some reason best known to them, that he didn't mind.  The Crown seemed to be in a dither as to what she'd say.  The judge sat in the middle of this stoush.  
Anyway she was called and it was decided that Bellanto would lead off.  (highly unusual as she was called by the Crown.  This is the second time this has happened in this trial)  Weird really.  So Bellanto was happy as he got the news headlines, and the jury went off for the night with a weeping Jaimie on their minds.  She got emotional when talking about how Brett is such a lovely guy.  She was asked by Bellanto what was Brett like when he was late taking his diabetes meds.  She said he was a little shaky.  She also said he was always in control when he'd been drinking.  Bellanto asked her if she was aware of the allegations.  Jaimie said she was.  She looked calm and assured in the box and looked across at Brett often.    

When I left the court I noticed Choc outside looking very dapper.  I noticed Zorb was wearing a suit today.  Looked much better.

Quite a positive day for Brett.  The total lack of DNA is really central in this case.  The sexual assault expert for Bellanto was good.  The Crown tried to unsettle her but she remained calm and focused throughout.  Jaimie finished it off on a positive note.  She resumes tomorrow and will have to hold up under cross, which might get nasty.      
 
Matabele, he causes of the red mark are hotly disputed, and there's huge doubt about what caused it.  
 What is better for Brett is that the taping of the clothes didn't result in any of Brett's DNA.  And remember they were described by the complainant herself as quite tight.  One reason for that would be that BRETT DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.  Honestly, I can't see how any right minded jury would convict on the say so of this complainant, when there's so much contradiction, doubt and just plain craziness.  More of Jaimie tomorrow, and then defense witnesses.  The prosecutor will really try to unsettle Jaimie and put her in a bad light.  She'll need to be strong.
 
Jethro and Matabele no speculation please
 
Thursday.  Jaime continues.
She gave evidence about being at the unit on the evening of the alleged event.  She said she saw the girl walking down towards the gate.  And got a phone call from Brett telling her he was on his way home.  She waited in her unit and noticed yelling coming from the front gate area.  She noticed a thick set man arguing and getting physical with Brett.  Brett looked confused.  When he came in to their unit he said "a girl had tried to kiss him"  (The Crown objected to this on hearsay grounds)  Jaime said that Brett didn't go to the toilet or wash his hands.  That he was in control of himself.  She said that cops arrived and Brett got into a conversation with them, mainly about footie.  The cops took him upstairs to get his med stuff and then took him to Dee Why Police Station.  She went after, with his manager.    She admitted this allegation has taken a toll on her, she's depressed and anxious.
Cross examination by the Crown.
He went into the timing of the calls and the observation of the girl by Jaimie.  He asked why she hadn't given a statement on the night.  She answered she was confused and upset at that time.
The prosecutor asked her why there was no reference to 'kissing' in her statement that she provided to police later, or mentioned it in the questioning by police later.  He went over this ommision a number of times.  Jaimie said she hadn't discussed the event with Brett.
Bellanto then re examined.
He asked, was the reason that she declined to be interviewed by the police or anyone, because the media had sensationalized the event?  She answered, "yes".
Bellanto then asked her, had she read in the press that Brett 'raped the girl in the stairwell?  Jaimie replied yes.  
She agreed with Bellanto that Brett doesn't use the term 'bro'.  And that he detested smoking.
Now, the addition in her testament today about the 'kissing', and the ommision of it in her previous statements could have her seen as not so truthful.  I don't know, but she was clear and direct today, not evasive.
                            End of Crown Case.
There was a submission by Bellanto to knock out the first charge as the complainant in her evidence had not stated the tongue allegation in the first kiss.  A moot point I thought.  The judge agreed with me and the charge stays.

Opening of the defense case:
Bellanto opened with a statement that he would present Brett as a witness, He stated that Brett didn't have to give evidence but he wanted to.  Others would be called to give evidence and that his credibility would be attested to by others.

Brett was called to the stand:
Bellanto took him through his early years, at school, his short apprenticship, his Flegg days and up to when he joined our mighty club.
He was diagnosed with diabetes in year 8.
Bellanto took Brett through his charitable commitments:
Diabetes Australia
Eat well, live well, play well.
Careflight.
McGrath Foundation.
Spina Bifida.
Bowel Cancer research.
Bellanto then moved to his recent playing days.
He asked Brett about his representative career, his playing and working in PNG to counter violence against women and the AIDs program.
He asked him whether this was work, or a lifestyle choice.
Brett said that he firmly believed in the anti-violence towards women sentiments, and the campaign.

I  never realized this guy had such a stellar carrer.  I was amazed by Bellanto's listing of Brett's footie acomplishments.

Anyway, then he moved to the week leading up to the night inquestion
Bellanto took Brett through his movments that Wednesday and Thursday.  Media stuff, NRL launch, training etc.
On to Friday night,
Bellanto took Brett through his movements after the launch, from the Steyne to the Pacific and into the cab home.
On arrival home Brett said he got out of the cab, said a derogatory comment to a girl who was smoking, was confronted at the front of the units by this girl who grabbed his arm and said she wanted a kiss.
He said he pulled away and the girl went inside through the gate.
When asked by Bellanto why he didn't just go inside and up to his unit, Brett replied that the club has told the players that they should wait a minute if confronted, and to calm down before moving on.  Good advice really.
Bellanto will continue this afternoon
Brett has given his evidence so far, confidently, with modesty and directness.  
 
THURSDAY.

Thursday 23rd – Morning Session

Jaime continues.

She gave evidence about being at the unit on the evening of the alleged event.  She said she saw the girl walking down towards the gate.  And got a phone call from Brett telling her he was on his way home.  She waited in her unit and noticed yelling coming from the front gate area.  She noticed a thick set man arguing and getting physical with Brett.  Brett looked confused.  When he came in to their unit he said "a girl had tried to kiss him” (The Crown objected to this on hearsay grounds) Jaime said that Brett didn't go to the toilet or wash his hands.  That he was in control of himself.  She said that cops arrived and Brett got into a conversation with them, mainly about footie.  The cops took him upstairs to get his med stuff and then took him to Dee Why Police Station.  She went after, with his manager.    She admitted this allegation has taken a toll on her, she's depressed and anxious.

Cross examination by the Crown.

He went into the timing of the calls and the observation of the girl by Jaimie.  He asked why she hadn't given a statement on the night.  She answered she was confused and upset at that time.

The prosecutor asked her why there was no reference to 'kissing' in her statement that she provided to police later, or mentioned it in the questioning by police later.  He went over this omission a number of times.  Jaimie said she hadn't discussed the event with Brett.

Bellanto then re examined.

He asked, was the reason that she declined to be interviewed by the police or anyone, because the media had sensationalized the event?  She answered, "Yes".

Bellanto then asked her, had she read in the press that Brett 'raped the girl in the stairwell?  Jaimie replied yes.

She agreed with Bellanto that Brett doesn't use the term 'bro'.  And that he detested smoking.

Now, the addition in her testament today about the 'kissing', and the omission of it in her previous statements could have her seen as not so truthful.  I don't know, but she was clear and direct today, not evasive.


******        End of Crown Case.      ******


There was a submission by Bellanto to knock out the first charge as the complainant in her evidence had not stated the tongue allegation in the first kiss.  A moot point I thought.  The judge agreed with me and the charge stays.

Opening of the defence case:

Bellanto opened with a statement that he would present Brett as a witness, He stated that Brett didn't have to give evidence but he wanted to.  Others would be called to give evidence and that his credibility would be attested to by others.
 
Brett was called to the stand:

Bellanto took him through his early years, at school, his short apprenticeship, his Flegg days and up to when he joined our mighty club.

He was diagnosed with diabetes in year 8.

Bellanto took Brett through his charitable commitments:

Diabetes Australia
Eat well, live well, play well.
Careflight.
McGrath Foundation.
Spina Bifida.
Bowel Cancer research.

Bellanto then moved to his recent playing days.

He asked Brett about his representative career, his playing and working in PNG to counter violence against women and the AIDs program.

He asked him whether this was work, or a lifestyle choice.

Brett said that he firmly believed in the anti-violence towards women sentiments, and the campaign.

I never realized this guy had such a stellar career.  I was amazed by Bellanto's listing of Brett's footie accomplishments.

Anyway, then he moved to the week leading up to the night in question.

Bellanto took Brett through his movements that Wednesday and Thursday.  Media stuff, NRL launch, training etc.

On to Friday night,

Bellanto took Brett through his movements after the launch, from the Steyne to the Pacific and into the cab home.

On arrival home Brett said he got out of the cab, said a derogatory comment to a girl who was smoking, was confronted at the front of the units by this girl who grabbed his arm and said she wanted a kiss.

He said he pulled away and the girl went inside through the gate.

When asked by Bellanto why he didn't just go inside and up to his unit, Brett replied that the club has told the players that they should wait a minute if confronted, and to calm down before moving on.  Good advice really.

Bellanto will continue this afternoon

Brett has given his evidence so far, confidently, with modesty and directness.



Afternoon,  Brett continues.
Brett continued his testimony, stating that after the girl asked to kiss him he pushed the girl back, just pushing her arms.   The father came out, was aggressive, throwing punches and knocked/pushed Brett into the front fence.  Brett said he didn't respond, other than to take a defensive position.  The father was yelling stuff like, "you did something to my daughter" Brett said.
Brett went on,
"We were holding each other by the clothes and I went backwards into the fence".
"I did nothing wrong".
After some argy bargy Brett said they moved up the driveway jostling.
Brett said he weighs 92 kilos and is 6 feet tall.  He described the girl as small and stocky.
Brett then described how he went into the unit and talked to Jaimie. Then the cops arrived.
He repeatedly asked the cops, "What's going on"?
Conversations took place between Brett and the cops, primarily about the footie.  He was taken to the Dee Why Police Station.   He didn't wash his hands and readily agreed to swabs.  After he was at the DWPS for a time, he was allowed to go and went and stayed at Jaimie's mothers place for a few days and then stayed at Glenn's place.  He stated that there was media everywhere.

Brett became very emotional and sobbed in the witness box as he described the rumors about him raping the girl in the stairwell and, that he was so pissed he couldn't remember anything.  A tense time.

He was shown, by Bellanto, the 'Code of Conduct' that the club provides and stated that he abides by this at all times.

Cross examination by the Crown:
Asked if Brett had used the term 'bro' in interviews.  He said "no".
Prosecution then went on and on about the team, and by inference Brett, about over indulging at the Wharf bar.  This was really a dead end for the prosecutor and he struggled from this point on.  He even showed a CCCTV footage of Brett walking across a bar room and slipping as an example of being intoxicated.  he tried to imply that a slip was falling down drunk, or at least highly intoxicated.  Even the judge laughed at this.  He will continue to cross tomorrow and internds to show more CCCTV footage of Brett in various hotels on that night.  I can't see this going anywhere as I've seen the CCCTV footage of the end of the night when Brett got in a cab and he certainly didn't appear intoxicated then.

Brett was terrific today.  He was articulate, steady, answered in an honest fashion, not evasive in any way, and carried the day.  This was Brett's best day, as we've had to sit through and hear so many lies,  half truths and innuendos to get to this.  He was great.  I love the guy and hope he plays for us for many years to come.  More tomorrow.  
   
 
Morning all.  Friday morning session.  Today will end at 12.00 noon as the judge has another matter on this afternoon.

Here we go;
Brett still  on the stand being cross examined by the Crown.  He asked Brett again about the 'bro' word.  He tried to confuse Brett, and get him to say the words that agreed with the father's version.  Brett stood firm with his answers.  The prosecutor had nowhere to go really.  Brett was a truthful and terrific witness.

Next witness - Glenn Stewart.
Glenn said that he'd played with the Sea Eagles since 02.  He stated that Brett was his "best mate since forever", and that Brett never had a problem with alcohol and was always in control.  Glenn then went on to say that he was at the Wharf bar, that Brett was having a few drinks, some of them coke, and that he was in control.  (Remember the prosecution alleges Brett was smashed, and that he could have done what he's accused of through intoxication.  That's why there's so much evidence of Brett being 'in control' as the Crown have introduced all this stuff from the cops saying that Brett was intoxicated).     
Anyway, Glenn continued by saying that when the function at the Wharf bar concluded, he was asked to deal with Choc and the sponsor, and that he and Brett had arranged to meet up at the Manly Pacific. 
He agreed with Bellanto that Des Hasler had given them talks on what to do when confronted in a sticky situation, i.e cool off, no retaliation.
Glenn was then asked to detail what he had heard and read of the incident at Brett's unit complex.  He said that after the incident Brett and Jaimie had become depressed and "had gone into their shells".
The Crown raised a point of order about the relevance of the press clippings that immediately proceeded the incident re rape, intoxication, and Brett tackling the girl.  Bellanto countered that these press reports were the reason that Jaimie, in her evidence yesterday,  had not given immediate statements to the cops.  That she had 'gone into her shell' and become depressed and therefore not responsive to the cops. 
A very good point.
Anyway Bellanto ended there, and the Crown cross-examined Glenn.
The Crown didn't really get going, as he got tied up with an arguement about the CCCTV footage outside the Pacific when Brett and Glenn hailed a cab for Brett to go home.  (I can't see anything in this, as it only shows a couple of guys trying to hail a cab.  The footage does not show any signs of Brett being 'drunk', or 'intoxicated'.  And the footage shows people wandering past them, Brett just stands there waiting for a cab.  Nothing in it..)  It wasn't shown.
Glenn was good, steady and firm. 

Witness - Margaret Cuneen.
Senior Counsel, Deputy Crown Prosecutor, 20 years experience, worked in the Attorney General's Office for 30 years, Has three sons who are friendly with Brett, known Brett for 6 years. (she did the Skaf prosecution from memory)
Anyway, she said that Brett is 'refreshingly respectful towards women, stands, offers assistance, always helpful and gracious".
She said that people come up to Brett often, and he's always helpful and responsive in an appropriate manner.  She said that he is very proficient dealing with people, adults, young girls in a respectful way.  She went on, "I've been in many cases where there is violence against women". 
Bellanto:  Do you find this these allegations credible?"
Cunneen: I find them completely inconsistent". 

Cross-examination by the Crown:
The prosecutor asked her if she'd been in any recent sexual assault cases, to which she replied, not recently.
The Crown went on and asked her if people present in public in an appropriate manner but this is not necessarily how they behave in private.
She agreed, however she further stated that she did not believe this in regard to Brett.  She related how she'd attended private and public situations where Brett consumed alcohol and that he was always in control, and was alwasy respectful.
(She was then asked to read out loud what Brett is alleged to have done to the girl.  Unfairly in my view, as it just is another reinforcement of the crap charges).
She said that she had never seen him drunk and that he often has a coke rather than alcoholic beverage. 
Bellanto didn't bother following up. 

Witness - Des Hasler.
Bellanto took Des through his coaching record.  30 players, 14 staff.  Head coach since 2004, but involved in the club before that time.
He said that Brett is a 'freakish' talent. (objected to)
Bellanto then took him through the Code of Conduct' and what instructions the players are given when confronted with a problematic situation. 
Des said that there are predators and dubious characters out there.
"We (meaning Manly) give workshops to show the players how to react to problems.  Holding back, separation".  Des went on to say that anyone with a mobile phone can be a problem.
Des then talked about the social interaction he has with the players, team dinners etc.  He stated that Brett always acted appropriately.
He went on to outline Brett's character and virtue. (Remember folks that Des is a Christian)  He said that because of Brett's disability, i.e. diabetes, he has overcome this and has gone on to be a role model, compassionant and humble.  Des thought this might be to do with growing up with a disability. 
Anyway he further said that Brett doesn't use the term 'bro'.  He got a laugh when he said that Brett called him other names however.

When he was cross-examined, he stated that he didn't know the evidence, that the Code of Conduct was around in 08 and 09, and that the threats he described as being out there in the community could be avoided by checking body language and that he taught the players to 'separate, and not to get embroiled in any situation that could be problematic'
The day ended on that note.  The prosecution is flaying around and Brett is looking better and better. 
IT'S BECAUSE HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING IN THE FIRST PLACE.  That's becoming more obvious as this farce continues.  I predict it will finish on Wednesday.  One last witness for the defense early Monday, then sum-ups from the Crown and Defense, legalese by the Judge, and then the jury retires.
 
Ok, here goes.  Monday 27th

Bellanto discussed some matter which was raised on Friday in a 'closed court'.  Wouldn't know what.

Witness - Deanne Lees, Operations manager for the Sea Eagles. 
Known Brett since 04 when he signed with us.  Known socially and professionally.  Brtt is involved in many charities which she listed.  He involves himself in many activities involving kids and fans, probably more than other players. 
Bellanto;  "Do you find the allegations belieavable"?
Lees:      "Not at all believable - totally unbelieavable".

The Crown asked her if she knew the evidence, she replied she didn't, and the Crown asked her how she knew he was so close to fans.  She stated it was her job to know.

There was an adjounrment when Bellanto attempted to have the frist charge of sexual assault knocked out.  The judge agreed in part in tah he didn't want the complainant evidence to carry the day  He said that this evicdence carried with it 'severe issues".  Anytway the trial continued.
bellanto objected to the crap about the Wharf bar.  He contnded that the event occureed 4 hours prior to the allegation and was prejudicial.
Nothing seemed to come of this and we all had a break and came back twenty minutes later.

The Crown began its summation.

It began with a summation of the supposed background evidence.  The function and drinking.
It would also rely on the evidence of the girl's distress and the red mark near her vagina.  He asked the jury to discount the mental illness and he asserted that she was in remission and therefore can be viewed as credible.  The Crown conceded that her memory might be poor, although not so poor as to not remember the allegation.  The Crown went on about the time line of reporting, the 000 number, the cops turning up.  The Crown asserted that the Dad changed heis name because of the publicity of the event. (It forgot to mention his 200 aliases used by him in the past)
The Crown went on about the evidence given about Brrett's level of 'intoxication'.  (hroughout the trial this has come up as though he was pissed and not in control)  He went on about the girl's answer to why wwould she allege what had happened.  The Crown said her answer, "Why would I lie", is credible and goes to the core of their case. 
He then went on to attempt to rubbish Dr Norrie's report.  He also said that the psychiatrist's report stated that the mental illness was 'episodic' and therefore came and went, and at this time she3 was in remission.  He dismissed the lack of DNA asserting that as Bretts fingernails were cut short he wouldn't have any of her on him. (He didn't mention the lack of his,on her person or her clothes)
On the character witnesses, Cuneen and Glenn and Lees, he dismissed as not being on the scene.  On Des, he accepted that Brett was a terrific football player.

All in all quite rambling and in my opinion weak.  He went over tired evidence and struggled to hold the interest of the jury as observed.

Bellanto
 
Continued with Bellanto.
He began his summation with the statement that this case rests on inconsistency, misrepresentation and accusations from a witness with a serious mental illness.
The Crown's case rests on the evidence of a complainant whose psychiatrist couldn't guarantee she was 100% reliable.
Bellanto made the case for onus of proof beyond a reasonable doubt being on the head of the Crown.  He talked about the presumption of innocence afforded to us all.  Bellanto talked about the dad's inconsistencies in his evidence, and the behaviour of the complainant.  Did she fabricate or hallucinate?  A 'conundrum', Bellanto called it.  
There were issues of 'doubt' surrounding the 'red' mark  He cited the Crown's doctor saying the red mark, "may, or was "likely', but not "definitely" caused by a finger.  "There's doubt", he stated.
He finished for lunch on the line that this case was like
'A bad movie you want to leave, but wait, waiting for the knockout blow"
And even if you were swayed , maybe/maybe not, then you must find Brett not guilty.  
On the character witness that Brett supplied, Bellanto said that the court was priviliged to hear what a decent human being Brett is, He's a pillar, Bellanto said.
Continued aafter 2.00.
 
 
DSM5, I'm sure Silvertails readers would like to know how attentive the jury were during Bellanto's summation.
 
They were certainly more awake this afternoon, and Bellanto could tell when they wiltered, as he got an adjournment at 3pm to freshen them up.  The Crown summing up was dreadful, repetitious and boring.  He kept referring to the defense's arguements, which I thought was strange.  I thought, as I've always thought, that this case really has no legs, and the Crown struggles for relevance.

Anyway here's Bellanto this afternoon.
He started by saying there we 6 areas to consider.
Who are we judging.
What's the likelihood of it happening in;
1  a public area
2  near a gate, not self locking
3  The neighbours, the Helms, sitting in their front garden just over the fence
4  Brett being physically unable to grope such a short person
5  He wanted to get home to Jaimie (and by inference, a babe)
6  Jaimie was expecting him - he'd phoned and SMS'd her
7  He hates smoking with a passion
8  She was a young girl, as Brett said, he thought 13/14, wearing what Brett said were pyjamas

Bellanto then went into the lack of DNA on him and her.
The accused, Bretts, reaction;
repeated denials, consented to forensic procedures, co-operating with cops, didn't fight back, He didn't run inside and wash or anything else.
Then Bellanto compared him with the reliability of the complainant. 
"She has psychiatric problems"  "She gave conflicting accounts of what happened".
As an example of this Bellanto read out what she said to her father, her mother and her stepsister, who she rang immediately after the event.
Then the father was compared to Brett.
Exageration in the 000 call, the 'pants down' allegation in that call, Brett's use of 'bro' repeatedly,  The string of evidence of his dishonesty before the courts.

Bellanto asserted that the dad's complaints 'took on a life of its own', 'the father was the catalyst for this whole story', 'prophery at the beginning, became evidentiary reality', 'he picked up the ball and ran with it, only the wrong way'.
Bellanto then went into the history of the allegations and the chronological order of it all.  He spoke of the complainant's,
trial and order with medication, she started the conversation with Brett, and how Brett used the Code of Conduct with the girl's reaction.
Bellanto then said very forcefully that the Crown has not found any incident or hint of anything negative about Brett, and he further said that they'd had almost 18 months to do it and found nothing.
He said the cops had found nobody who would say anything other than Brett was of exemplary character.  This carries weight, Bellanto added.
He cited the cops, He was very polite said the cop.  Brett conversed with cops for twenty minutes or so in a polite and rational manner at the unit.
Bellanto cited Ms Merrin's evidence: "He would never ever disrespect anyone like that", she said.  "He stopped a cab for me and helped me get home by giving the cab money and making sure I got home".
Ms Cuneen's evidence; He is a 'gentleman', "this allegation is totally inconsistent",He made a private and public committment against violence against women".
Dasler's statement that Brett was/is an oustanding athlete, "compassionate and humble".
Jaime Baker;  "Brett is always respectful and polite".
Then Bellanto dealt with the matter of 'intoxication.  He admitted that Brett was 'moderately affected'.  But "always in control".  It's a subjective thing he said, and then went on to give the conflicting accounts of bar and police witnesses as to the level of Brett's 'intoxication'.
The word 'bro'.  Evidence was presented that doesn't support this version of events by the complainant's family.  The fact that the Crown couldn't find one interview where he has used the term. The neighbours didn't hear it, witness for the club hadn't heard Brett use the term.
The broken gate.  The girl had said she needed to go in with Brett because the 'gate was broken'.  Not true asserted Bellanto, and the cops never investigated the gate.  It was because the gate wasn't broken, Bellanto asserted.
Did the girl know Brett?  Bellanto gave examples of how the girl did indeed know of Brett, and the persons she discussed Brett with before the event.
Bellanto made the point that Brett didn't know where Jaimie was when he was in the cab coming home, in the unit or coming down the driveway to meet him.  She could have been at, or near the gate when he was there and so therefore why would Brett have anything to do with the girl?  It simply didn't make sense, Bellanto implied.
The 'red' mark,  The evidence pointed to a number of possible caused Bellanto asserted.  Trauma or infection were the most likely from the reports he said.  Bellanto then attacked the Crown's doctor on these points;
1  Her sloppy report writing.
2  No swab taken to eliminate infection.
3  The use of cross hatching # to demonsrate what the mark looked like.
4  The ridiculous percentage assessment of cause by Dr Hayes.
5  Wrong wording of 'abraided' i.e.  means 'rubbing skin off', when Hayes wrote in her report, that there was no skin rubbed off.
6  The use of the word 'tender' in regard to a light bruise on the complainant's arm (not seen by the cops at the hospital), but no use of this subjective term used on other parts of her body.

Bellanto continues tomorrow.   

     
 
I forgot to mention that Dasler, Toovs, Glenn, and MATTY ORFORD were in court.  I shook the great man's hand. 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom