Ben Stokes

[slartibartfast]

1 hour ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Very interesting, and this story from the 'Gay Couple' may indeed be true - but my understanding was that they didn't give evidence, so how is this relevant?

If, and I repeat, If, BS was indeed defending these two young men, then fair play to him, even if he may have taken things 'a bit' too far.

But I still fail to understand the failure to convict BS of affray and/or his defence of 'Self Defence'.

Obviously not a football fan then or he would have been locked away for years !

[JasonM88]

1 hour ago, handsofclay said:

Surely this exonerates Stokes. He put the safety of others before himself. OK, once he did so he possibly went a bit OTT. However, on occasions when burglars are killed in the home of someone who has the temerity to fight back (usually with a weapon to hand) the general consensus of opinion is that he deserved it. Furthermore, as was put forward in the case, there's a real possibility that the injuries Stokes was accused of inflicting upon Mr Ali were caused by Hales!

 

Alex Hales, or Ryan Hale?

[handsofclay]

7 minutes ago, JasonM88 said:

Alex Hales, or Ryan Hale?

Alex Hales.

[handsofclay]

23 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Australia obviously supports the verdict:

 The Australian point of view?

 

JΛKE BUCKLEY 

 

✔@TheMasterBucks

 

 

As an Australian cricket fan I'd just like to thank @ECB_cricket for allowing Ben Stokes to immediately rejoin the England Test Squad.

It's nice to know the Aussies are no longer the biggest disgrace to the sport

Oh the irony! Had Stokes been found guilty 150 years ago he would've been sent to Australia to improve their gene pool.

[BobBobSuperBob]

2 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Very interesting, and this story from the 'Gay Couple' may indeed be true - but my understanding was that they didn't give evidence, so how is this relevant?

If, and I repeat, If, BS was indeed defending these two young men, then fair play to him, even if he may have taken things 'a bit' too far.

But I still fail to understand the failure to convict BS of affray and/or his defence of 'Self Defence'.

How strange that they have managed to speak to the press twice

But at the centre of all this and their accounts should be critical , yet they weren’t called by either the prosecution or defence as witnesses

Id take what they say with a pinch of salt

[PHILINFRANCE]

9 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

How strange that they have managed to speak to the press twice

But at the centre of all this and their accounts should be critical , yet they weren’t called by either the prosecution or defence as witnesses

Id take what they say with a pinch of salt

Exactly.

[phantom]

6 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

They wouldn’t be allowed to read witness statements of witnesses not called

Unless prosecution and defence had agreed and allowed the statements as evidence during the trial 

@BobBobSuperBob

This is what I meant 

 

[phantom]

1 hour ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

 

Id take what they say with a pinch of salt

Am guessing that is why neither side wanted to chance them getting cross examined in court? 

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 minute ago, phantom said:

@BobBobSuperBob

This is what I meant 

 

Ta Phants

Unless the witness statements of the gay couple were agreed (As truth) (with no one wishing to cross examine their accounts) by the prosecution and defence prior to or during the trial , the jury wouldn’t be allowed to see them despite their request

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 minute ago, phantom said:

Am guessing that is why neither side wanted to chance them getting cross examined in court? 

The only reason I can see the prosecution wouldn’t  call them is either

1 Their Accounts Cant be relied on (All have agreed they are unrealisable witnesses)

2 Their Accounts didn’t help / support the prosecution in which case the defence would have called them

 

[EmersonsRed]

bbsb spot on here. Lack of the two in question speaks volumes 

[Monkeh]

I'll take the accounts of the couple involved that were suffering abuse before stokes stepped in over the legal experts on here,

Stokes has been found innocent by Jury despite being condemned by OTIB,

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 hour ago, Monkeh said:

I'll take the accounts of the couple involved that were suffering abuse before stokes stepped in over the legal experts on here,

Stokes has been found innocent by Jury despite being condemned by OTIB,

What the couple who gave interviews to the Sun £££ And ITV

But,

despite being material and crucial witnesses were not called by either the prosecution or defence

Yep ok then 

[Monkeh]

2 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

What the couple who gave interviews to the Sun £££ And ITV

But,

despite being material and crucial witnesses were not called by either the prosecution or defence

Yep ok then 

and stokes was found innocent by a jury of his peers but you choose to ignore that

[BobBobSuperBob]

13 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

and stokes was found innocent by a jury of his peers but you choose to ignore that

Well spotted

And the irony being , I’d suggest the mysterious absence of the gay couple , who you would rely on ,  as witnesses in the trial may well be the very reason why a number of questions and holes led to the Jury not convicting

You are clearly a legal expert and I’ll leave you to work out the reasons for their absence 

[AshtonGreat]

3 hours ago, Monkeh said:

I'll take the accounts of the couple involved that were suffering abuse before stokes stepped in over the legal experts on here,

Stokes has been found innocent by Jury despite being condemned by OTIB,

It doesn't make the whole case any less baffling  

[Esmond Million's Bung]

2 hours ago, Monkeh said:

and stokes was found innocent by a jury of his peers but you choose to ignore that

He was charged with the wrong offence, charging affray was a joke and the people involved in that decision should be sanctioned over that decision, it beggars belief.

Next time you get involved in a fracas you do what Stokes and Hales did and see if you get charged with affray.

Bottom line the CCTV shows that Stokes and Hales are a pair of thugs, who went far beyond self defence or defending a couple of gay people and because of people who cannot do their job properly they got away with it, not because of any sense of justice.

 

 

[North London Red]

5 hours ago, Monkeh said:

 

Stokes has been found innocent by Jury

 

4 hours ago, Monkeh said:

and stokes was found innocent by a jury of his peers

A slightly picky point, but the verdict of the jury was 'not guilty' rather than 'innocent'. A jury does not find that a defendant is innocent, they need only find that they are not guilty. For a guilty verdict, the jury must be sure of the defendant's guilt.

Anyone who has done jury service recently will most likely have heard the judge in the case say to them something along the lines of "if you think the defendant is guilty but you aren't sure, you must return a verdict of not guilty".

[Undy English]

Whilst I agree that a jury, with access to the complete evidence, should be trusted over OTIB users 'guilty' verdicts, you have to admit, based on the CCTV footage, most of the public must be baffled how he got away with it!!

[Kid in the Riot]

1 hour ago, North London Red said:

A slightly picky point, but the verdict of the jury was 'not guilty' rather than 'innocent'. A jury does not find that a defendant is innocent, they need only find that they are not guilty. For a guilty verdict, the jury must be sure of the defendant's guilt.

Anyone who has done jury service recently will most likely have heard the judge in the case say to them something along the lines of "if you think the defendant is guilty but you aren't sure, you must return a verdict of not guilty".

Totally right. I did jury service on a GBH case and to this day I don't know if the defendant was guilty or not as it was his word versus the alleged victim's. One of them was lying. We had to return a not guilty verdict as we simply couldn't be sure of the defendants guilt. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

6 hours ago, North London Red said:

 

A slightly picky point, but the verdict of the jury was 'not guilty' rather than 'innocent'. A jury does not find that a defendant is innocent, they need only find that they are not guilty. For a guilty verdict, the jury must be sure of the defendant's guilt.

Anyone who has done jury service recently will most likely have heard the judge in the case say to them something along the lines of "if you think the defendant is guilty but you aren't sure, you must return a verdict of not guilty".

On another picky point not guilty of the offence he was charged with not the offence that the rest of the world actually witnessed on the CCTV evidence alone.