|
Post by lastminutewinner on Nov 17, 2021 14:23:36 GMT
The police/CPS wont need his wife to give evidence. If hes bang to rights of what the police discovered at the scene that evening, then they will prosecute regardless. That was the change in the law from before where the police couldnt do anything if the spouse didnt want to press charges, but if they turn up and there has been an obvious assault, the police can press the charge using what they see at the scene that evening. And rightly so. if not that could leave it wide open to further abuse/intimidation etc. Its not like a lot of abuse victims can just up and leave
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Nov 17, 2021 14:35:34 GMT
I was under the impression that the wife refused to give any evidence... that being said, it's just what I read (I think she posted on insta) Cant they use the 999 call as evidence (obvs not knowing if any useful information was disclosed on that call) and police at the scene? Doesn't matter if his wife refuses to give evidence, if there is other proof that an offence was caused then they will pursue it which they are doing. Whether they proceed to court it if it was just some scag from Hartcliffe or the like, I very much doubt She says she was drunk when she made that call. So if she denies it and says she was just drunk, doubt they would be able to use it.
|
|
|
Post by lastminutewinner on Nov 17, 2021 14:36:45 GMT
Cant they use the 999 call as evidence (obvs not knowing if any useful information was disclosed on that call) and police at the scene? Doesn't matter if his wife refuses to give evidence, if there is other proof that an offence was caused then they will pursue it which they are doing. Whether they proceed to court it if it was just some scag from Hartcliffe or the like, I very much doubt She says she was drunk when she made that call. So if she denies it and says she was just drunk, doubt they would be able to use it. I always thought the truth comes out more when drunk. does for me anyway. Many paedos also say they were drunk when they talk to underage girls online. They still get prosecuted
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Nov 17, 2021 14:38:45 GMT
She says she was drunk when she made that call. So if she denies it and says she was just drunk, doubt they would be able to use it. I always thought the truth comes out more when drunk. does for me anyway Not necessarily, I’ve met a lot of people who lie when drunk. That try and fight when drunk, who would make stuff up to hurt someone and then regret it etc.
|
|
|
Post by goodnightirene1883 on Nov 17, 2021 14:39:10 GMT
I was under the impression that the wife refused to give any evidence... that being said, it's just what I read (I think she posted on insta) Worth noting she has since deleted that post. That I did not know - cheers pal
|
|
|
Post by lastminutewinner on Nov 17, 2021 14:40:25 GMT
I always thought the truth comes out more when drunk. does for me anyway Not necessarily, I’ve met a lot of people who lie when drunk. That try and fight when drunk, who would make stuff up to hurt someone and then regret it etc. I guess you can always use that excuse then. Im sure they will be using the call information together attended police statements from the night though
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on Nov 17, 2021 14:45:25 GMT
The police/CPS wont need his wife to give evidence. If hes bang to rights of what the police discovered at the scene that evening, then they will prosecute regardless. That was the change in the law from before where the police couldnt do anything if the spouse didnt want to press charges, but if they turn up and there has been an obvious assault, the police can press the charge using what they see at the scene that evening. You are correct however his defence team will argue without her to cross examine he will not get a fair trial, they will have the 999 call and potential body cam evidence from the officers attending, and a note of the injuries suffered. The stendel case is weak no one saw him do anything from what I've read. There is bad character evidence available from his previous assaults. If he is convicted of the domestic abuse charge he will be sacked, not sure about the stendel charge though.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 17, 2021 14:59:50 GMT
So Rovers winning some matches is more important to you than (if convicted), punishing a repeat violent offender for what is currently alleged but would have been guilty of grabbing his wife around the throat, throwing her to the floor and repeatedly kicking her in the head? You would prefer that person to continue to be the face of Rovers and be integral in shaping and moulding the lives of numerous impressionable young footballers if it meant winning a few more games? You got any evidence to back that up? And yes, winning games is far more important to me than what an employee has going on in his domestic life. And he's not the face of BRFC. As for "shaping and moulding the lives of numerous impressionable young footballers", what a load of crap.
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Nov 17, 2021 15:39:20 GMT
So Rovers winning some matches is more important to you than (if convicted), punishing a repeat violent offender for what is currently alleged but would have been guilty of grabbing his wife around the throat, throwing her to the floor and repeatedly kicking her in the head? You would prefer that person to continue to be the face of Rovers and be integral in shaping and moulding the lives of numerous impressionable young footballers if it meant winning a few more games? You got any evidence to back that up? And yes, winning games is far more important to me than what an employee has going on in his domestic life. And he's not the face of BRFC. As for "shaping and moulding the lives of numerous impressionable young footballers", what a load of crap. The post you replied to and my post stated if convicted. The evidence would be that he would have been found guilty of the offence. Maybe the face of BRFC was incorrectly phrased. As the manager he is the figurehead of the playing side of the club. Crap? You don’t think the manager of a club has a large amount of influence over the players?
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 17, 2021 16:29:02 GMT
You got any evidence to back that up? And yes, winning games is far more important to me than what an employee has going on in his domestic life. And he's not the face of BRFC. As for "shaping and moulding the lives of numerous impressionable young footballers", what a load of crap. The post you replied to and my post stated if convicted. The evidence would be that he would have been found guilty of the offence. Maybe the face of BRFC was incorrectly phrased. As the manager he is the figurehead of the playing side of the club. Crap? You don’t think the manager of a club has a large amount of influence over the players? You know what chap? Not so long ago I was going to delete my account due to being fed up with more than a few posters on here. You're not one of them and I really enjoy your posts. Getting into this with you just isn't my thing anymore as life's too short. Opinions are just that. No offence taken or given. Up the Gas!!! Bags.
|
|
|
Post by Wembley_Gas on Nov 17, 2021 16:36:28 GMT
We’re so tinpot we’ll probably have JB managing us through a prison phone with a hotline to the dugout. The transfer dealings will be interesting…you can have him for 3 packs of snout, 2 burner phones and 10 SIM cards.
|
|
|
Post by richhertford on Nov 17, 2021 16:41:07 GMT
Just as JB has got us together and we are playing well and winning games as well as moving up the table that his court dates are coming up and he could be sent to prison and go down leaving us back at square one! Only at BRFC.. Right now, as you would expect, I’m hopeful for the future. My approach to life is to not spend anytime worrying or thinking about stuff outside of my control. I’m loving this moment and look forward to the next few games. A few weeks back , some would not have expected us to be in this position. By Christmas we might have built on recent result and be ready for promotion push.
|
|
|
Post by gasfred on Nov 17, 2021 16:51:42 GMT
Oh well didn't take long for the positivity of last night to evaporate !!
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjones on Nov 17, 2021 16:58:44 GMT
The owners Waels, knew about his court cases coming up and still employed him, WHY. If he is convicted we will be looking for a new manager again. Why was he employed to start with. Blame the owner not true supporters. Up The Pirates.
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Nov 17, 2021 17:05:10 GMT
The case management hearing was due today but I can't find anything about it... usually the press are all over this stuff. Not sure what a case management hearing is all about but wondered if the judge can make a decision to proceed or throw it out? It's possible both cases could fall apart if Stendall won't show and his wife refuses to give evidence. Isn’t the 2nd case a victimless prosecution though. Ie the prosecutors think they’ve got enough on him to go ahead with a trial without victim testimony. I can’t see the CPS sanctioning it if not with the current court backlog.
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Nov 17, 2021 17:14:18 GMT
The police/CPS wont need his wife to give evidence. If hes bang to rights of what the police discovered at the scene that evening, then they will prosecute regardless. That was the change in the law from before where the police couldnt do anything if the spouse didnt want to press charges, but if they turn up and there has been an obvious assault, the police can press the charge using what they see at the scene that evening. This is intriguing. I know a couple who used to go on drinking binges. They used to have silly fights - like chucking an ashtray and coat hangers at each other and throwing plates. They most certainly gave as good as they got in both instances. She was no shrinking violet or downtrodden victim. So under the law now they could get drunk, throw some stuff about, police get called and if there’s an injury, basically they will prosecute the guy (or both) even though it’s all forgotten in the morning? I suppose the law is to protect seriously nasty domestic abusers bullying their victims into not prosecuting, I suppose discretion from the police is allowed, if they guess it’s a stupid argument then they’ll just leave it. The question in this case is do the police think Joey is a domestic abuser, who has threatened his wife into silence through coercion and violence. If they try to prosecute we can deduce they believe this to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Nov 17, 2021 17:30:10 GMT
The police/CPS wont need his wife to give evidence. If hes bang to rights of what the police discovered at the scene that evening, then they will prosecute regardless. That was the change in the law from before where the police couldnt do anything if the spouse didnt want to press charges, but if they turn up and there has been an obvious assault, the police can press the charge using what they see at the scene that evening. This is intriguing. I know a couple who used to go on drinking binges. They used to have silly fights - like chucking an ashtray and coat hangers at each other and throwing plates. They most certainly gave as good as they got in both instances. She was no shrinking violet or downtrodden victim. So under the law now they could get drunk, throw some stuff about, police get called and if there’s an injury, basically they will prosecute the guy (or both) even though it’s all forgotten in the morning? I suppose the law is to protect seriously nasty domestic abusers bullying their victims into not prosecuting, I suppose discretion from the police is allowed, if they guess it’s a stupid argument then they’ll just leave it. The question in this case is do the police think Joey is a domestic abuser, who has threatened his wife into silence through coercion and violence. If they try to prosecute we can deduce they believe this to be the case. I think also we’re forgetting that just because there’s no victim testimony, it doesn’t mean there won’t be a testimony altogether. It was a party, there was presumably other people in attendance when the alleged assault was said to have took place. If the police have gone to the house found evidence of injuries to one person, then maybe a witness has filled in the gaps, then it isn’t surprising that they’ve decided to prosecute. There’s not really any point in speculating about what happened because we won’t know until the trial. The reports at the time sounded like it was a nasty attack but really the full story of what happened hasn’t come out yet. Just referring to your example, I think most cases of the examples you’ve used wouldn’t go to court because there’d be no-one in attendance, the police would have found them both drunk and perhaps evidence of them both using physical means against each other. At most they’d probably get a ticking off over noise complaints. If it did go to court, then they’d need strong evidence of previous assault charges and one sided violence for a prosecution which is always difficult for a crime that has taken place behind close doors without witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by madgas on Nov 17, 2021 17:42:09 GMT
Worth noting she has since deleted that post. That I did not know - cheers pal I don't think it was ever a post? I believe she commented on Instagram Stories I.E. something that last 24hrs only. The suggestion that something was deleted will likely be jumped on as guilt so I wanted to put this possibility out there.
|
|
|
Post by bluebiro on Nov 17, 2021 17:49:04 GMT
Oh well didn't take long for the positivity of last night to evaporate !! only seems to be half a dozen who constantly bring this topic up. At least they have stopped ruining the match day threads now we are on a roll
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 17, 2021 17:50:28 GMT
Cant they use the 999 call as evidence (obvs not knowing if any useful information was disclosed on that call) and police at the scene? Doesn't matter if his wife refuses to give evidence, if there is other proof that an offence was caused then they will pursue it which they are doing. Whether they proceed to court it if it was just some scag from Hartcliffe or the like, I very much doubt She says she was drunk when she made that call. So if she denies it and says she was just drunk, doubt they would be able to use it. Why can't they use it, are you suggesting if they stop a drink driver etc they can't use what he says at the scene in court? It seems the whole case is based on whatever Mrs B said, if the police/CPS can't use that evidence they won't have much of a case. What's interesting is that it's been suggested recently most defendent's plead not guilty as it's the only way to get access to the police/CPS evidence, it could be when Barton's legal team see the video evidence they advise him to plead guilty, or it just highlights the CPS have a weak case.
|
|