I'm pretty sure there is. I have read there is video footage of her rushing him, there was no dna evidence on his hands etc etc. I don' thave the links though, I've just read it all over time. It just looked more and more like a set up by a dodgy father and his schizophrenic daughter.Emma said:Why? Is there any evidence to prove they made it up?
Yes, that is true - but like you said it was always a he said/she said thing. She said "he did this", he was there, he was blind rotten drunk, there was an altercation and there was witnesses. Also, he is an NRL player.Emma said:It still comes down to a he said she said though. Surely if the evidence was there to prove it was all a lie, it would never have made it to trial.
mrslong said:Great, great news.
Good for the game.
Couldn't have come at a better time either.
Now I hope the father/daughter face some serious charges for falsification etc.
Yeah, that is also to prevent innocent people being punished, because no matter how you put it, it's better to let 10 guilty people go than jail an innocent one.Foordy said:mrslong said:Great, great news.
Good for the game.
Couldn't have come at a better time either.
Now I hope the father/daughter face some serious charges for falsification etc.
Not Guilty doesn't mean that he was innocent. it just means that they were unable to prove that he did it.
unfortunately guilty people do get found not guilty (especially in these sorts of cases)
mrslong said:and thus the reason why if he truly didn't do it, he should counter sue for having his name soiled like this.
Everyone is still talking as though he did it. :evil:
The truth is this: the father has been convicted of fraud in the past. The daughter has schizophrenia.
There was no DNA evidence that stewart had done anything wrong.
He is one of the few players that had a clean image.
And YET everyone still thinks he has gotten off on a technicality.
It stinks that mud sticks.
mrslong said:The truth is this: the father has been convicted of fraud in the past. The daughter has schizophrenia.
mrslong said:I have read there is video footage of her rushing him
mrslong said:The truth is this: the father has been convicted of fraud in the past. The daughter has schizophrenia.
of which there doesnt actually seem to be any.Nashy said:But in saying that. Mental illness and past convictions shouldn't play a part. It should be based only on the evidence presented in this case.
Anonymous person said:of which there doesnt actually seem to be any.Nashy said:But in saying that. Mental illness and past convictions shouldn't play a part. It should be based only on the evidence presented in this case.
so i think when you take into account the fact that theres no evidence AT ALL supporting her other than her fathers testimony and hers, the fact that hes been done for fraud and that shes got a mental illness should be taken into account IMO.
there was a 17 year old girl crying rape, and an NRL footballer who was drunk.Coxy said:Fortunately, you're not responsible for our legal process [icon_wink
Clearly there was SOMETHING to the case or it wouldn't have gone to trial, end of story.
Anonymous person said:there was a 17 year old girl crying rape, and an NRL footballer who was drunk.Coxy said:Fortunately, you're not responsible for our legal process [icon_wink
Clearly there was SOMETHING to the case or it wouldn't have gone to trial, end of story.
unfortunately thats enough to get it to trial. it took the jury less than an hour, so obviously there was no evidence. there was no dna, no footage, no credible unbiased witnesses......what else could there be?