|
Post by Tilly's Thighs on Dec 6, 2021 15:37:54 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 In other words, you pick and chose when this can be applied.
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Dec 6, 2021 15:40:28 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 In other words, you pick and chose when this can be applied. No it's not me it's the law, please see my previous post on 47
|
|
|
Post by meadgas on Dec 6, 2021 15:41:08 GMT
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-/
He didn't have to prove his innocence, they had to prove his guilt which they didn't, as far as the law is concerned he is innocent of the charges brought.
|
|
|
Post by gas2 on Dec 6, 2021 15:41:55 GMT
This made me laugh he admitted using industrial language in the game
|
|
|
Post by gashead4ever on Dec 6, 2021 15:45:38 GMT
hopefully as a fan base we can come together more and back manager and team and really push on
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Dec 6, 2021 15:45:54 GMT
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-/
He didn't have to prove his innocence, they had to prove his guilt which they didn't, as far as the law is concerned he is innocent of the charges brought. Thank you at last someone agrees "He didn't have to prove his innocence" agrees with my point that I was making that he wasn't "proven innocent"
|
|
|
Post by Tilly's Thighs on Dec 6, 2021 15:47:32 GMT
In other words, you pick and chose when this can be applied. No it's not me it's the law, please see my previous post on 47 Yes, the law which applies to everybody.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyGas on Dec 6, 2021 15:48:27 GMT
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. Yep they had an eye witness who says that Barton ran into the tunnel and angled his run to shoulder barge Stendel. However that does not prove intent. The defence summed it up as such: " Mr Csoka stressed that it was not the jury’s task to decide how it was that Mr Stendel received his injuries. The barrister said: “Even if it was an accident, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he (Barton) would have been aware of what he did, especially if you consider the domino effect we are familiar with in crowded areas.”" In other words; it doesn't matter that CCTV showed Barton running into the tunnel after Stendel and then the tunnel shook. It doesn't matter that there was an eye witness to say it was Joey who shoved him over. But the legal definition of assault occasioning actual bodily harm says: "The offence is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly assaults another, thereby causing Actual Bodily Harm. It must be proved that the assault (which includes “battery”) “occasioned” or caused the bodily harm"
So Barton could be found "Not Guilty" if the prosecution could not prove the shove was intentional or reckless or maybe if the injuries (in this case the tooth being pushed back by the railings) were not directly inflicted by the assault. For me, the key thing would be intent.. and there was a video shown that captured some of the post-match activity before the incident and it apparently showed Barton having a calm conversation with the ref and then an opposition player before he left the field - and none of it suggested he was in a rage and looking to assault someone. " In his evidence, Barton said he was discussing his time playing for Marseille with the rival player, who is a fan of the French team, and had simply asked the referee a question about whether a red card issued to one of his players was a “straight red” or after two yellow cards.
Mr Csoka said this was “not consistent with someone in a rage”. He told the jury: “This is a case where you cannot possibly be sure.”" None of this means he didn't do it, of course (and on balance of probability - with what we know of his history and his temperament etc he most likely did). But it could not be proven (beyond "reasonable" doubt).
|
|
|
Post by bidefordgas on Dec 6, 2021 15:53:36 GMT
In other words, you pick and chose when this can be applied. No it's not me it's the law, please see my previous post on 47 The lawmakers/cps/ police would say that though especially seeing they brought the person to court in the first place. There quite happy to take the stance innocent until proven guilty when a person goes to court but then don't want to accept he is innocent when found not guilty. Even if someone is proven to be totally innocent at his/her trial they will only ever be found not guilty or in the odd case the trial is stopped and the person is declared to have no charges to answer to. Innocent is not a word in the vocabulary of the legal profession. Thankfully the majority of the general public are quite happy to pronounce anyone found not guilty by twelve good men and true to be innocent.
|
|
|
Post by Midsomer Murderer on Dec 6, 2021 16:00:06 GMT
Wow - It was hard to believe we had so many planning experts in our ranks but the number of legal geniuses is staggering It helps when when your sibling was a legal eagle. Made me laugh ~ like saying my brother was a doctor so I can whip out your tonsils
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2021 16:02:48 GMT
I guess the one thing we can all agree on is…. Ummm… errr…. Uh… anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Midsomer Murderer on Dec 6, 2021 16:03:08 GMT
Wow - It was hard to believe we had so many planning experts in our ranks but the number of legal geniuses is staggering No one's claiming to be a legal genius but you may wish to consider that some of us might be quite well educated, there may even be people with expertise in a number of areas, including the law. I consider most of this forum educated but I doubt many are barristers or judges your honour
|
|
|
Post by Midsomer Murderer on Dec 6, 2021 16:08:18 GMT
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he did it, but in a court of law there is no way that the jury could come to a guilty verdict based on that weak ‘evidence’. What a waste of time were you there then ? Did he tell you he did it ? if not you cannot have no doubt
|
|
|
Post by RD on Dec 6, 2021 16:13:55 GMT
I guess the one thing we can all agree on is…. Ummm… errr…. Uh… anyone? That supporting the Gas is never dull?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2021 16:14:42 GMT
I guess the one thing we can all agree on is…. Ummm… errr…. Uh… anyone? That supporting the Gas is never dull? There is that one mate. Sure as hell ain’t run of the mill.
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Dec 6, 2021 16:14:57 GMT
In other words, you pick and chose when this can be applied. No it's not me it's the law, please see my previous post on 47 Thought we worked under the rules of innocent until proven guilty?
|
|
|
Post by Midsomer Murderer on Dec 6, 2021 16:18:20 GMT
I guess the one thing we can all agree on is…. Ummm… errr…. Uh… anyone? Sorry, I dont agtee
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2021 16:21:22 GMT
I guess the one thing we can all agree on is…. Ummm… errr…. Uh… anyone? That supporting the Gas is never dull? I actually think it is at the moment. Crap football and tedious back and forth about a manager who’s not that good. Boring
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Dec 6, 2021 16:25:02 GMT
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-/
Not wishing to split hairs, but your source is an American one and is based on the US legal system.
For a more relevant UK based assessment, you might like to consider the following, which was from a UK Supreme Court judgement where the Government tried (and failed) to force compensation claimants to prove their innocence (rather than being found not guilty or having a previous judgement overturned).
Baroness Hale said:
Innocence as such is not a concept known to our criminal justice system. We distinguish between the guilty and the not guilty. A person is only guilty if the state can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. .... If it can be conclusively shown that the state was not entitled to punish a person, it seems to me that he should be entitled to compensation for having been punished. He does not have to prove his innocence at his trial and it seems wrong in principle that he should be required to prove his innocence now.
FROM THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN R (ADAMS) V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE
|
|
|
Post by meadgas on Dec 6, 2021 16:28:55 GMT
That supporting the Gas is never dull? I actually think it is at the moment. Crap football and tedious back and forth about a manager who’s not that good. Boring Earlier in the season i would agree, however the win at Harrogate, the Northampton game and the oxford games were far from boring. He has not completely won me over but it is a sight better. Also he is still a novice manager and hopefully will improve too, if not he will be gone like many others before him.
|
|