|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 17, 2021 17:57:59 GMT
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. No, it was a Insta post which she subsequently deleted, probably on legal advice. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 17, 2021 18:02:08 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. One of the Barnsley players apparently saw Barton push Stendel, if he comes across as a good witness when he eventually gives his evidence then Barton could well be struggling, although if he comes across just as bad as Stendel did he could well be found not guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Nov 17, 2021 18:30:00 GMT
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. A victimless prosecution simply means the victim isn't participating in the trial. It's no different than a no body murder trial for example. Not having the victim as part of the process has no bearing on guilt, innocence or any outcome. It certainly doesn't mean there wasn't a victim. The CPS may feel they have enough but a pre-trial judge could still throw it out. For all we know, 20 people may have seen the incident. If all 20 testify then the victim is somewhat superfluous. If no one saw anything or their testimony or character is easily doubted then despite that "evidence" it can still be thrown out. |
|
|
|
Post by giles on Nov 17, 2021 18:45:32 GMT
Let’s keep our fingers crossed JB is acquitted, momentum is starting to build & he’s starting to build a side that’s proud to wear the shirt & give it their all, which is all gasheads ever ask for. A. If not found guilty it does not mean that he is innocent and B. Whatever the outcome it does not change the person that he is |
|
|
|
Post by giles on Nov 17, 2021 18:51:52 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. Surely the question is “is the defendant guilty of the crime that he had been charged with?” |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Nov 17, 2021 19:07:33 GMT
Conversely, is it someone else's luck they go up a place today (without playing a match) because of a points reduction for Reading placing them firmly in 19th position?
|
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Nov 17, 2021 19:12:19 GMT
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. Surely the question is “is the defendant guilty of the crime that he had been charged with?” That’s the question to which evidence will give the answer. And nothing more. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 17, 2021 19:44:52 GMT
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. A victimless prosecution simply means the victim isn't participating in the trial. It's no different than a no body murder trial for example. Not having the victim as part of the process has no bearing on guilt, innocence or any outcome. It certainly doesn't mean there wasn't a victim. The CPS may feel they have enough but a pre-trial judge could still throw it out. For all we know, 20 people may have seen the incident. If all 20 testify then the victim is somewhat superfluous. If no one saw anything or their testimony or character is easily doubted then despite that "evidence" it can still be thrown out. I sense your confusing a Crown Court case with just a basic Magistrate Court hearing, I can't see a Magistrate at this level will have the authority to throw the case out until the trial is underway. |
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on Nov 17, 2021 19:47:52 GMT
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. One of the Barnsley players apparently saw Barton push Stendel, if he comes across as a good witness when he eventually gives his evidence then Barton could well be struggling, although if he comes across just as bad as Stendel did he could well be found not guilty. I ve read conflicting reports that one of the Barnsley players tweeted certain things that happened allegedly and then withdrew them, Joey's defence team will be all over that, I don't think the evidence is very strong. If he has done either I hope he is convicted but can t see it. |
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Nov 17, 2021 19:57:05 GMT
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. Surely the question is “is the defendant guilty of the crime that he had been charged with?” No. There is no complainant. This is discussing whether the prosecution is in the public interest. I could poke my wife right now in the thigh lightly, and report myself and confess to assault. I would be guilty of assault. However, if my wife didn’t complain, the police have to decide if it’s in the interest of the public to punish me. If we went around applying the letter of the law without some kind of objective analysis of prosecutions, the courts would be chock full of never ending cases and nearly everyone would have a criminal record. |
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Nov 17, 2021 20:27:13 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. 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. Not saying they can never use it. But if she’s saying she lied as she drunk and annoyed with him at the time, then they won’t have much of a case. But we don’t know what she said at the time and what she has said since. I’m just guessing, the same as anyone. I bet if it wasn’t Barton, it wouldn’t have gone this far already. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Nov 17, 2021 20:36:03 GMT
Surely the question is “is the defendant guilty of the crime that he had been charged with?” No. There is no complainant. This is discussing whether the prosecution is in the public interest. I could poke my wife right now in the thigh lightly, and report myself and confess to assault. I would be guilty of assault. However, if my wife didn’t complain, the police have to decide if it’s in the interest of the public to punish me. If we went around applying the letter of the law without some kind of objective analysis of prosecutions, the courts would be chock full of never ending cases and nearly everyone would have a criminal record. This is true but with a prison sentence and a string of assault convictions under his belt and 2 pending court cases I can't imagine there is a judge or magisrtate in the country who would not think it's in the public interest to pursue a case against someone with his record. |
|
|
|
Post by darkbluegas on Nov 17, 2021 20:45:13 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. Not necessarily, an assault charge needs evidence that it occurred without lawful authority or reasonable excuse unless it’s of such a serious nature. I’m not sure what the injuries were that his wife sustained. Failure to prove an assault could result in a public order charge. This is how Ben Stokes avoided conviction due to a bad CPS charging decision |
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Nov 17, 2021 20:50:24 GMT
No. There is no complainant. This is discussing whether the prosecution is in the public interest. I could poke my wife right now in the thigh lightly, and report myself and confess to assault. I would be guilty of assault. However, if my wife didn’t complain, the police have to decide if it’s in the interest of the public to punish me. If we went around applying the letter of the law without some kind of objective analysis of prosecutions, the courts would be chock full of never ending cases and nearly everyone would have a criminal record. This is true but with a prison sentence and a string of assault convictions under his belt and 2 pending court cases I can't imagine there is a judge or magisrtate in the country who would not think it's in the public interest to pursue a case against someone with his record. I wasn’t aware that was a factor - I suppose if you’re a repeat offender then it does make more sense to prosecute. The one I can see online (I know there was a cigar incident) was a fight with a team mate. I have seen lots of fights and assaults between grown men and I note he got 12 month suspended for that. I thought generally 2 men having a barney the police wouldn’t be interested. This was fairly commonplace for a lot of people growing up so it seems a lot of fuss for someone clocking someone. I do think this got to court mainly because of wealthy players with lawyers. Or perhaps the world has changed and 2 men having a fight now is a court matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Nov 17, 2021 20:56:54 GMT
This is true but with a prison sentence and a string of assault convictions under his belt and 2 pending court cases I can't imagine there is a judge or magisrtate in the country who would not think it's in the public interest to pursue a case against someone with his record. I wasn’t aware that was a factor - I suppose if you’re a repeat offender then it does make more sense to prosecute. The one I can see online (I know there was a cigar incident) was a fight with a team mate. I have seen lots of fights and assaults between grown men and I note he got 12 month suspended for that. I thought generally 2 men having a barney the police wouldn’t be interested. This was fairly commonplace for a lot of people growing up so it seems a lot of fuss for someone clocking someone. I do think this got to court mainly because of wealthy players with lawyers. Or perhaps the world has changed and 2 men having a fight now is a court matter. Nah, I think people see Barton and immediately overreact without objectivity. There is no way he will get a fair trial. That said, he really has no one to blame for that but himself. |
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Nov 17, 2021 21:05:16 GMT
I wasn’t aware that was a factor - I suppose if you’re a repeat offender then it does make more sense to prosecute. The one I can see online (I know there was a cigar incident) was a fight with a team mate. I have seen lots of fights and assaults between grown men and I note he got 12 month suspended for that. I thought generally 2 men having a barney the police wouldn’t be interested. This was fairly commonplace for a lot of people growing up so it seems a lot of fuss for someone clocking someone. I do think this got to court mainly because of wealthy players with lawyers. Or perhaps the world has changed and 2 men having a fight now is a court matter. Nah, I think people see Barton and immediately overreact without objectivity. There is no way he will get a fair trial. That said, he really has no one to blame for that but himself. Agree. He clearly has issues regulating his actions and emotions, and I’m under no illusions he’s an angel. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Nov 17, 2021 21:27:14 GMT
Nah, I think people see Barton and immediately overreact without objectivity. There is no way he will get a fair trial. That said, he really has no one to blame for that but himself. Agree. He clearly has issues regulating his actions and emotions, and I’m under no illusions he’s an angel. Having reflected on it, I wonder (without coming up with an answer myself) if JB is actually being treated fairly by being harshly judged. Is it just unfair that someone with a similar history gets off a bit lighter because they are not famous? Should everyone with similar records to Jb be treated like JB or should he be cut the same slack as all the other career thugs who seem to get away with much more than Barton ever will? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2021 21:31:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Nov 17, 2021 21:32:51 GMT
Surely the question is “is the defendant guilty of the crime that he had been charged with?” No. There is no complainant. This is discussing whether the prosecution is in the public interest. I could poke my wife right now in the thigh lightly, and report myself and confess to assault. I would be guilty of assault. However, if my wife didn’t complain, the police have to decide if it’s in the interest of the public to punish me. If we went around applying the letter of the law without some kind of objective analysis of prosecutions, the courts would be chock full of never ending cases and nearly everyone would have a criminal record. The thing is he didn't just poke his wife on the thigh lightly. According to the court transcripts for when they set the date he is alleged to have grabbed her round the throat, knocked her to the floor then kicked her in the head. With a track record of violent assaults I can't see how that wouldn't be in the public interest to pursue if they feel they have sufficient evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by aforce on Nov 17, 2021 22:15:00 GMT
I couldn’t give a monkeys about the stendel case
|
|
