Hi KIWI, so you are saying the police viewed the CCTV footage, decide there is nothing in it , but decided to charge Ferguson anyway ?
AND, what footage reg Brett do you believe they , the police ,viewed before charging him ?
Footage from outside the place he lived at where the alleged incident took place or are you referring to footage from a pub he was at waaay before the incident took place?
He was charged by the police for an alleged assault, not for being drunk. The NRL suspended him for being drunk.
BTW -there is a difference between a charge being layed and a conviction.
Kiwi Eagle said:
Westie, all your links say is that the police have viewed CCTV
It does not mention anything at all about what that CCTV shows, or if it was any sort of proof of an incident occuring.
The police also viewed CCTV footage of Brett prior to charging him as well
The point im trying to get across is , yes there should be a presumption of innocence , but in this instance , and with the existence of CCTV footage , i think the cops know which way this is going to go...and have acted accordingly.
Do you think brett stewart would have preffered there to have been video footage of him leaving the taxi when he got home after the launch , and encountered the accuser outside his house ?? would such footage have cleared him straight away and not meant he had to endure hellish accusations ? instead of trying to prove innocence with a " his word against hers" situation ??
for this same reason , i think the CCTV footage the police have viwed would suggest Ferguson has a case to answer. Ferguson will get his chance to argue his case in court.