JFKvsNixon Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 He is guilty in most peoples eyes, it was the Magistrates opinion that there was a minor chance there could be another explanation so had to find him not guilty. A Jury would not have come to the same conclusion nor the majority of normal people. Money got him the not guilty, they came up with a hair brained excuse and it would have been hard to rule out and it worked, well done to his solicitors. Still Guilty. So you believe that a jury would have convicted Terry even though the prosecution couldn't provide one witness that could actually confirm what Terry did or did not say? I'd suggest that it was Terry's notoriety that landed the case in court in the first place, if this incident had happened on the local playing fields nothing more would have been done about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 i think footballers who are on such huge salaries should be able to take a bit of banter between themselves..... nasty as it was! without resorting to this legal farce. this was not said or done directly to camera or for public viewing it was a passing exchange of personal comments, get over it or sort it out like men:roll: Neither AF nor JT "resorted to law". A complaint was made by a third party. The police and the CPS took it from there. Neither AF nor JT wanrted anything to happen after the match Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 He is guilty in most peoples eyes, it was the Magistrates opinion that there was a minor chance there could be another explanation so had to find him not guilty. A Jury would not have come to the same conclusion nor the majority of normal people. Money got him the not guilty, they came up with a hair brained excuse and it would have been hard to rule out and it worked, well done to his solicitors. Still Guilty. I believe that in this sort of situation a jury would be even more likely to acquit than would a magistrate. Where defendants have the choice between a magistrates court or a court in front of a jury, and when it's a matter of defending their good name, AND they've got the money to afford good barristers, it is common for them to go down the jury route (even though punishments can be higher if found guilty), because they are more likely to get a not guilty verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 He is guilty in most peoples eyes, it was the Magistrates opinion that there was a minor chance there could be another explanation so had to find him not guilty. A Jury would not have come to the same conclusion nor the majority of normal people.. A jury would have had no choice. Believing someone is guilty means you have to find them not guilty, because belief is not proof beyond doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 So you believe that a jury would have convicted Terry even though the prosecution couldn't provide one witness that could actually confirm what Terry did or did not say? I'd suggest that it was Terry's notoriety that landed the case in court in the first place, if this incident had happened on the local playing fields nothing more would have been done about it. Thats true,but if you are an England captain and at an earlier time had very nearly missed the chance of even being selected for the team for previous behaviour shouldn't you realise that you are under media scrutiny,and be careful what you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Neither AF nor JT "resorted to law". A complaint was made by a third party. The police and the CPS took it from there. Neither AF nor JT wanrted anything to happen after the match i stand corrected... but in that case the 3rd party should have kept their nose out instead of trying to score racial points. imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 i stand corrected... but in that case the 3rd party should have kept their nose out instead of trying to score racial points. imo "Racial points", what does that mean? Anyone can make a complaint about any kind of anti-social behaviour and often it happens. If I saw someone being aggressively and verbally abused publicly for any reason I'd have no hesitation in doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Thats true,but if you are an England captain and at an earlier time had very nearly missed the chance of even being selected for the team for previous behaviour shouldn't you realise that you are under media scrutiny,and be careful what you say. I agree..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLakeland Posted July 14, 2012 Author Share Posted July 14, 2012 Very unusual for the mother of Stephen Lawrence to very publicly turn up at the trial. If that wasn't a clear attempt to influence the outcome, I don't know what is. Yes that was quite wrong. She should have kept out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLakeland Posted July 14, 2012 Author Share Posted July 14, 2012 Hmm just like OJ Simpson was, LMAO. The OJ verdict was the biggest ever travesty in the history of trial by jury. The most racist outcome ever reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.