|
Post by warehamgas on Dec 6, 2021 14:46:15 GMT
Presumably there is still the chance of FA or EFL action over this incident though? So to go back to the football analogy, Barton's got a winner but there will be a VAR check Can't see how the FA or EFL can take any action - Barton has been cleared of any wrongdoing in court so in the eyes of the law he has nothing to answer for. How can the FA or EFL then take action against him when he's 'done nothing wrong' here? Yes I agree with you, nothing should happen. But I also remember John Terry found Not Guilty in the racism case with Anton Ferdinand in a court of law but still faced an FA charge if I remember correctly which took away the England captaincy and a ban. Different people I know but still I expect something might be said. UTG!
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Dec 6, 2021 14:46:35 GMT
And that's why we should get back to doing what we do best, getting behind the Manager, and the squad tomorrow night. Yep Great Manager on and off the pitch ! Superb Ambassador for Bristol Rovers football club that young fans can look up to , surely if he’s still here this time next year he will be granted the freedom of Bristol! Stop going then. Hand your card in, stop going.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyGas on Dec 6, 2021 14:46:38 GMT
Did he have his teeth knocked out or just chip a tooth, if that, as precise details were never reported from the trial. I wonder where this now leaves Stendel's reputation, as the jury clearly didn't believe he was telling the truth. I don't think it was a case of the jury not believing Stendel was telling the truth. They could have totally believed his side of the story, but without any compelling evidence to back it up (beyond reasonable doubt) they would have to issue a "Not Guilty" verdict. So I don't think Stendel's reputation is damaged in any way.
|
|
|
Post by bridgwatergas on Dec 6, 2021 14:48:57 GMT
Don t want to upset the anti joey brigade on here but the next court case has less evidence than this one, not condoning domestic violence abhorrent but being factual. The “hate Barton “ club will be sick tonight 🤣🤣 Honestly. This place is such a f**king sh*thole. Are you really surprised at some of these comments? If he was found guilty no doubt there would be far worse than that written on here.
|
|
|
Post by bidefordgas on Dec 6, 2021 14:59:14 GMT
How on earth could the EFL, FA take action on a crown court case that he was proven to be not guilty of by 10 to 0. He was not "proven to be not guilty", it's just that the evidence was too weak to find him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt", they are very different things You are wrong, the foreman of the jury clearly stated not guilty. That's good enough for me. The prosecution had two and a half years, nine witnesses and still could not prove it. I take it that "the evidence was too weak to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is your stance on anybody found not guilty at Crown court or is it conveniently just in this case?
|
|
mj
Youth Team
Posts: 75
|
Post by mj on Dec 6, 2021 15:06:21 GMT
As I said more holes in Stendels case than my sieve.I am sure JB and his brief tore it to shreds
|
|
|
Post by wallywalters on Dec 6, 2021 15:14:17 GMT
Unfortunately the anti Barton brigade / stay away are the vociferous minority as proved by decent enough attendance post covid and the best atmosphere home and away the gas have seen for a number of years. It’s like the left wing marches / kill the bill Demos Their constant whinging / forcing of their agenda makes it seem like most are for their point of view when in fact it’s quite the opposite. He’s been found not guilty. Move on. If you can’t support him then support the club you love and drive us to promotion. If he gets found guilty in the next one so be it. We go again. Doesn’t matter who’s in charge. Up the gas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2021 15:15:20 GMT
Don t want to upset the anti joey brigade on here but the next court case has less evidence than this one, not condoning domestic violence abhorrent but being factual. Possibly, don't understand why the couple whom the Barton's were partying with don't give evidence and clear Joey's name or perhaps they were there and saw nothing.
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Dec 6, 2021 15:22:52 GMT
He was not "proven to be not guilty", it's just that the evidence was too weak to find him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt", they are very different things You are wrong, the foreman of the jury clearly stated not guilty. That's good enough for me. The prosecution had two and a half years, nine witnesses and still could not prove it. I take it that "the evidence was too weak to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is your stance on anybody found not guilty at Crown court or is it conveniently just in this case? Not sure I am The defence did not produce evidence to prove him innocent did they? ( e.g. it was not JB because he was already in the dressing room with 12 other people at the time of the incident) The prosecution simply did not present enough evidence to "prove" him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. (or he would have been found guilty) I'm only commenting on this case but each would be viewed on the merits of each
|
|
|
Post by meadgas on Dec 6, 2021 15:24:00 GMT
Did he have his teeth knocked out or just chip a tooth, if that, as precise details were never reported from the trial. I wonder where this now leaves Stendel's reputation, as the jury clearly didn't believe he was telling the truth. I don't think it was a case of the jury not believing Stendel was telling the truth. They could have totally believed his side of the story, but without any compelling evidence to back it up (beyond reasonable doubt) they would have to issue a "Not Guilty" verdict. So I don't think Stendel's reputation is damaged in any way. They didn't believe his eye witness though did they, they heard all the evidence and found him not guilty end of.
|
|
|
Post by albaron on Dec 6, 2021 15:24:54 GMT
Going purely based on the press reporting and the fact it only took the jury an hour to return a unanimous verdict it does beg the question whether the evidence was strong enough to make it to court in the first place. Indeed. It's a funny one though - if you, I or someone we loved were assaulted, we'd want it to go to court - irrespective of a lack of witnesses/proof. No -- You are wrong there. I would want revenge and I would do everything in my power to get it. And I don't mean going through the courts.
|
|
|
Post by rovers5charlton5 on Dec 6, 2021 15:26:14 GMT
Is he keeping the lucky tash for the next case?
|
|
|
Post by meadgas on Dec 6, 2021 15:27:03 GMT
You are wrong, the foreman of the jury clearly stated not guilty. That's good enough for me. The prosecution had two and a half years, nine witnesses and still could not prove it. I take it that "the evidence was too weak to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is your stance on anybody found not guilty at Crown court or is it conveniently just in this case? Not sure I am The defence did not produce evidence to prove him innocent did they? ( e.g. it was not JB because he was already in the dressing room with 12 other people at the time of the incident) The prosecution simply did not present enough evidence to "prove" him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. (or he would have been found guilty) I'm only commenting on this case but each would be viewed on the merits of each They had an eye witness who the jury didn't believe i assume, dress it up how you like he was found not guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 6, 2021 15:27:13 GMT
Did he have his teeth knocked out or just chip a tooth, if that, as precise details were never reported from the trial. I wonder where this now leaves Stendel's reputation, as the jury clearly didn't believe he was telling the truth. Even with a not guilty verdict I think it’s obvious who most people would choose to believe.. 11 jury members clearly did, taking just 2 hours to come to a verdict suggests they were all pretty much in agreement with each other.
|
|
|
Post by wrongsideoftheriver on Dec 6, 2021 15:27:36 GMT
Good result for Barton and club.
As mentioned this will upset the anti barton fan base but who cares, it's time to kick on and climb the table
|
|
|
Post by bidefordgas on Dec 6, 2021 15:29:27 GMT
You are wrong, the foreman of the jury clearly stated not guilty. That's good enough for me. The prosecution had two and a half years, nine witnesses and still could not prove it. I take it that "the evidence was too weak to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is your stance on anybody found not guilty at Crown court or is it conveniently just in this case? Not sure I am The defence did not produce evidence to prove him innocent did they? ( e.g. it was not JB because he was already in the dressing room with 12 other people at the time of the incident) The prosecution simply did not present enough evidence to "prove" him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. (or he would have been found guilty) I'm only commenting on this case but each would be viewed on the merits of each What only came out today is Joeys evidence that he ran into a crowded tunnel, weaving in and out of people to get to the dressing room before his team. What was widely publicised was the Analysts evidence that he clearly saw JB shoulder charge Stendel in the tunnel and had an unobstructed view of it. Strange others in there did not see it. The jury were shown video evidence of how many people entered the tunnel and clearly believed Joeys account.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Dec 6, 2021 15:30:30 GMT
Indeed. It's a funny one though - if you, I or someone we loved were assaulted, we'd want it to go to court - irrespective of a lack of witnesses/proof. No -- You are wrong there. I would want revenge and I would do everything in my power to get it. And I don't mean going through the courts. And end up not seeing any of your loved ones for quite some time. Then losing your job. Then not being able to get another job with a Police record. Then having trouble going abroad on Holiday, with your loved ones. Losing your transportation, your insurance. Still worth it?
|
|
|
Post by bidefordgas on Dec 6, 2021 15:31:03 GMT
Even with a not guilty verdict I think it’s obvious who most people would choose to believe.. 11 jury members clearly did, taking just 2 hours to come to a verdict suggests they were all pretty much in agreement with each other. Only ten topper, one was indisposed this morning.
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Dec 6, 2021 15:35:23 GMT
Not sure I am The defence did not produce evidence to prove him innocent did they? ( e.g. it was not JB because he was already in the dressing room with 12 other people at the time of the incident) The prosecution simply did not present enough evidence to "prove" him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. (or he would have been found guilty) I'm only commenting on this case but each would be viewed on the merits of each They had an eye witness who the jury didn't believe i assume, dress it up how you like he was found not guilty. I am not dressing anything up and you are correct he was found "not guilty" but that does not mean he was "proven innocent" which is my original point (the law agrees with me) What's the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty"?
In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”.
www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2016/may/what-is-the-difference-between-innocent-and-not-/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2021 15:36:43 GMT
At least we can all now concentrate on the top class football side he’s delivered….oh hang on….😂
|
|