As journalists, interested onlookers and supporters cleared the courtroom, Jack Wighton and Latrell Mitchell hugged each other and shook hands with their lawyers.
"I wore my lucky socks everyday," a grinning Mr Wighton, 30, said.
But it wasn't the former Canberra Raider's socks that led to the dismissal of criminal charges against he and Mr Mitchell, 26, on Wednesday.
Their hearing, for fighting in public and related charges, abruptly ended on its third day because of one senior police witness' testimony and the CCTV footage he told the ACT Magistrates Court did not exist.
The footage's existence was not only a surprise to many in the public gallery, but also to the prosecutor at the bar table who believed he had been given all available evidence.
Sergeant David Power, the first of 10 intended witnesses, found himself front and centre of the widely publicised case when he sensationally agreed it appeared he had given false evidence.
The not-so-'missing' footage
It's not overly dramatic to describe barrister Steven Boland's cross-examination of Sergeant Power on Tuesday as movie-like.
Mr Boland, representing Mr Wighton, lulled the police officer into an apparent false sense of security with initial questions.
The barrister said he understood Sergeant Power's frustration that his central evidence of seeing Mr Wighton with "clenched fists", looking angry and in a "push and shove" with another man was not recorded.
The court heard this alleged behaviour led police to escort the NRL player out of Fiction nightclub on his 30th birthday earlier this year and give the man an exclusion direction from the city.
"It's just off screen," Mr Boland said, about the "missing" angle that could have shown the few seconds of alleged violent behaviour.
Sergeant Power agreed, after telling the court the behaviour was also not caught by body-worn cameras or seen by any other officers.
But understanding and pleasantries soon faded when the barrister played CCTV from the nightclub which had, in fact, recorded the few seconds from the unseen angle.
It turned out Mr Wighton's exchange with the other man had been entirely innocent.
"What have you got to say about that?" Mr Boland said, asking the officer to explain what the court had just seen and why Mr Wighton was kicked out of Fiction on unlawful grounds.
"Have you been telling the truth?"
Sergeant Power changed his tune on a dime, responding: "It appears what I saw doesn't match up with the footage."
Disclosure questions
It can be inferred the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions would likely not have pursued the case were it privy to the footage in question, with the exclusion direction kicking off all other alleged offending.
It's understood prosecutors were first made aware of the video when it was played in court on Tuesday morning.
"We do seem to have a situation here where evidence was brought forward by the defence that was not provided to the prosecution," Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury said on Thursday.
"We need to get to the bottom of how and why that occurred."
If regular procedure was followed, officers would have gathered all available evidence and disclosed it to the prosecution. A case would then have been put together and taken to court.
A disclosure certificate would have assured the brief of evidence was complete.
However, at the other end of the bar table, defence lawyers had no obligation to disclose evidence they planned to adduce in the hearing.
The legal teams of Mr Wighton and Mr Mitchell exercised that right by keeping their killer blow quiet.
Outside court on Wednesday, Mr Mitchell's solicitor, Tom Taylor, was asked if it had been difficult to unearth the case-ending footage and if it was concerning police had not "discovered it".
"No comment on that. Just good lawyering," Mr Taylor said.
But the solicitor said it was concerning if police had not taken all reasonable steps to get the vision.
"As Mr Boland explored yesterday in cross-examination, this potentially was a stitch-up from the start," Mr Taylor said.
"That [police] constructed a version of events and put together a brief, including footage, that supported or didn't support what they wanted to push."
Did police lie?
Word of Mr Boland's cross-examination must have spread in the territory's court precinct, with several lawyers gradually entering the courtroom to spectate.
"Are we looking at perjury here?" the barrister, who was at times almost shouting, asked Sergeant Power.
"Are you deliberately lying under oath?"
Despite the admission that his "memory had failed" him and he could not have seen Wighton acting the way he had told the court, Sergeant Power stood firm he had not lied.
"I didn't dream up anything ... I would never mislead the court," the senior officer said.
Mr Boland quickly responded: "You just have for two days."
"Not intentionally," Sergeant Power said.
The barrister accused the officer of inventing the entire scenario and of "simultaneously forgetting" the eye witness account of a security guard who had defended Wighton's behaviour as friendly.
"It is a fact you've given false evidence," Mr Boland said.
Sergeant Power eventually conceded "it appears so", before apologising directly to Mr Wighton in court.
"Sir, it's too late for apologies," the barrister said.
Further damning the revelation was a "round table", held the day of the so-called fight and led by the sergeant, of police involved in the arrests of Mr Mitchell and Mr Wighton.
"What you ended up doing was putting nine or so police officers, eye witnesses, in a room, and fitted up the facts. Do you see a problem here?" Mr Boland said.
Charges dismissed
"Let's go, round eight," Mr Mitchell told reporters, tongue-in-cheek, on his way into court on Wednesday morning.
But no more punches would be thrown, with prosecutor Sam Bargwanna telling the court he was not presenting any further evidence.
Charges of fighting in a public place and failing to comply with an exclusion notice, for Mr Wighton, and fighting in a public place, affray and resisting arrest, for Mr Mitchell, were dismissed.
Mr Mitchell told media outside court his experience of Canberra had been "traumatic".
Not many would question his response, after footage of the NRL star's arrest showed him repeatedly crying out in pain while three officers held him face down on Bunda Street on February 5.
The hearing will also no doubt have left long-time Canberra Raider Mr Wighton with a sour taste of the nation's capital as he departs for a new club.
The good friends and distant cousins are seeking legal costs and it appears both men could put forward civil claims against the territory's police.
The question has now been asked by many: How often are charges wrongfully laid by police without some of the country's best lawyers on hand to help uncover mistakes, or worse?
Further explanation from police and potential consequences remain to be seen.
It's understood the Australian Federal Police executive have referred the entire matter to the Professional Standards team, which investigates serious misconduct and corruption matters.
