In attendance, Choc, Kingy, Des, Wayne Springall (for all you oldies) MATT ORFORD, Glenn, Robbo, and Wheel.
Here we go, Tuesday morning
The Crown raised a point about this mornings 'Telegraph' coverage of one comment he says he didn't make. Â He whinged on for twenty minutes or so. Â The judges noted it and the journo apologised, apparently.
Anyway Bellanto continued;
He recapped yesterday's comments re the character of Brett, his actions, the circumstances at the scene at the time, intoxication, absence of DNA, the reliability of the complainant, gross exaggeration by the dad, factual issues and then went onto the 'red' mark.
He went into Dr Norrie's background, her expertise, qualifications and experience. Â He noted that Norrie had said that there were various explanations for the mark. Â He noted that Norrie had said that the mark was more likely to be self inflicted.
Bellanto spent a lot of time on this topic as it seems it's a big part of the Crown's case. Â Bellanto then said that because a witness says something a number of times, it doesn't make it true.
Bellanto then went into the compainant's evidence; Â He said that it just doesn't make sense. Â Bellanto said it was 'totally unlikely', and just not true'. Â He took the jury through her inconsistencies in her evidence, statements to others involved, the cops, the doctor and the dad. Â Bellanto told the jury of the girl's demeanour, her smiling, being calm, talkative. Â He noted the discrepencies of the cops on the scene, on how their statements were written, not at the scene but days and weeks later. Â Bellanto said that she hadn't taken her medication all day, that she was due to take it that evening, she suffered mood swings. Â He went into her difficulties of self medication, her hospitalization and dealing with this psychosis.
He said, "clearly the jury should see the shaky foundations, the flaws in the glass, of this complainant".
He said she is basically and totally unreliable.
He then went through the psychiatrist's evidence of his dealing with the complainant. Â relapses, symptoms, med history, problems with self medication, hospitalization.
he finished by saying that it was time to return a 'not guilty' verdict.
He said, "it was not time to lift the veil - let the light shine in on this gifted and decent gentleman". Â 11.20am
Judge sums up.
He outlined the charges, Reinforced theat it was the Crown's responsibility to prove each allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. Â He said that the jury should not be swayed by stereotypes in the media re football players and other sportsmen. Â That the jury should look at the evidence and view the witness as whether they are reliable, credible, consistent and accurate.
He went over the reasonable doubt thing again. Â
*******And the verdict needs to be unanimous********.
That the Crown must prove each element of the case. Â If the Crown has not, then a not guilty verdict must be returned. Â He went into the legalese of each charge, and clarified what 'beyond reasonable doubt' meant.
He then gave a chronological  order of the complaint.  He said that Brett didn't have to give evidence, in fact he said that Brett didn't have to say anything all the way through.  He said that 'character was not disputed by the Crown.  He said that character can determine;
1 Â Is it likely that a person such as Brett would do the deed.
2 Â Take into account whether Brett's evidence is believable based on the evidence of his character by the character witnesses.
The judge said that the jury should look at the complainants evidence with 'great care'. Â Don't accept iit if you don't think she's credible and reliable". Â He said the lack of DNA was no 'silver bullet' and that the red mark on the vagina was proof of a red mark. Â That's all it proves. Â As to the cause, well that's in conflict, he said. Â The Judge then reiterated about the 'reasonable doubt' thing. Â