Ron Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 I think we are getting close to retrying the case here, as I understand it he told the police about it, he lied to the NOTW reporter. As he said, one of them deserves the truth! That was also my understanding, and the prosecution's main line of attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 I think we are getting close to retrying the case here, as I understand it he told the police about it, he lied to the NOTW reporter. As he said, one of them deserves the truth! This is the uncontested testimony : "The existence of the bank account was not registered to Revenue and Customs for a period of six years, two months... after Mr Redknapp was first arrested and questioned in the course of this investigation. He only remembered this account when he was questioned as a result of the FA investigation into 'bungs'. The HMRC and City of London Police subsequently started preparing a criminal case. Redknapp's case wasn't that he hadn't hidden the account, but that it was full of money that had nothing to do with him or his work. All of which makes it all the more surprising then, that he told a reporter that he did receive a bonus for Crouch's sale. Of course, the jury decided to believe that he was just joshing when he said this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 No but I'm not worth billions and my mates dont have tons of cash they wish to invest. invest in what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 This is the uncontested testimony : "The existence of the bank account was not registered to Revenue and Customs for a period of six years, two months... after Mr Redknapp was first arrested and questioned in the course of this investigation. He only remembered this account when he was questioned as a result of the FA investigation into 'bungs'. The HMRC and City of London Police subsequently started preparing a criminal case. Redknapp's case wasn't that he hadn't hidden the account, but that it was full of money that had nothing to do with him or his work. All of which makes it all the more surprising then, that he told a reporter that he did receive a bonus for Crouch's sale. Of course, the jury decided to believe that he was just joshing when he said this. They were privvy to the whole case not just the bits that the press decide to give us, so I am willing to assume that the 12 of them made their decision based on all the evidence. On a side note, it seems there is a faint Bristol City link in the case............. "Redknapp tells police of his chance to share an £8.5 million property investment with a business associate of former England goalkeeper David James: "He put half in what I put in up to that point and my own money was about two hundred grand, now he's in for nothing and he has half the profit. The only downside is it's only worth four million pound now and I've done like six million you know, my house is up against it but that's where I'm at, that's how useless I am with things, and you can check with my solicitor if you like. I'll give you my solicitor's name, you ask him if he's ever come across anyone as bad businesswise as I am. Unfortunately I live my life like that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 No but I'm not worth billions and my mates dont have tons of cash they wish to invest. Most billionaire's tend to know how to open their own accounts and investment channels. And anyway, what was the investment? Why couldn't it be made in his own name or one of his associated companies? Why was the account in Monaco when the bulk of Mandaric's businesses are in the states? How could Mandaric stop Harry just taking the money - the account was in his name - after they stopped working together? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Well, we'll beg to differ on that one. Obviously you set up lots of bank accounts in your pets names and then allow your employer to pay money in them for his/her own purposes - and then forget to mention £189,000 when being interviewed by the police. What piece of evidence did the prosecution offer that you feel proved Redknapp's guilt? As dodgy as it looks, setting up an account in a funny name is not illegal (in Monaco), accepting some money to invest from your millionaire mate is perfectly legitimate and lieing to a NOTW journalist is to be applauded. Even forgetting to tell te police about a load of cash is inadvisable at best. The fact is that for every person who may have been influenced to find him not guilty by his celebrity, there is someone else who would find him guilty because of his reputation as a dodgy geeza. At the end of te day we have to accept that he was found bot guilty by a jury of his peers on the evidence presented in court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 They were privvy to the whole case not just the bits that the press decide to give us, so I am willing to assume that the 12 of them made their decision based on all the evidence. Newspapers and broadcasters can be prosecuted if they don't give a fair and accurate report of court cases. I don't think there were any critical points that weren't reported. The Telegraph had a daily live feed on its website other reporters tweeted every jot of evidence. I do support the jury system, but having done jury service twice .. God help us, I met people there who weren't sure how to spell their own names! Be nice if you had some sort of IQ test to qualify you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Newspapers and broadcasters can be prosecuted if they don't give a fair and accurate report of court cases. I don't think there were any critical points that weren't reported. The Telegraph had a daily live feed on its website other reporters tweeted every jot of evidence. I do support the jury system, but having done jury service twice .. God help us, I met people there who weren't sure how to spell their own names! Be nice if you had some sort of IQ test to qualify you. I would say the worst thing about the judicial system is that just being in court equates to guilty in many peoples eyes. Once accused it seems you are on a hiding to nothing as people will always make their own mind up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 What piece of evidence did the prosecution offer that you feel proved Redknapp's guilt? As dodgy as it looks, setting up an account in a funny name is not illegal (in Monaco), accepting some money to invest from your millionaire mate is perfectly legitimate and lieing to a NOTW journalist is to be applauded. Even forgetting to tell te police about a load of cash is inadvisable at best. The fact is that for every person who may have been influenced to find him not guilty by his celebrity, there is someone else who would find him guilty because of his reputation as a dodgy geeza. At the end of te day we have to accept that he was found bot guilty by a jury of his peers on the evidence presented in court So where was this investment made? Why was the account in his name, not Mandaric's? Why did he 'forget' it for six years - even when questioned directly about it? And if you're going to lie to a journalist, why would you fabricate a story that incriminates you to an offence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Most billionaire's tend to know how to open their own accounts and investment channels. And anyway, what was the investment? Why couldn't it be made in his own name or one of his associated companies? Why was the account in Monaco when the bulk of Mandaric's businesses are in the states? How could Mandaric stop Harry just taking the money - the account was in his name - after they stopped working together? Well Redknapp is not a billionaire for starters... I dont know enough about the case to answer the rest of your questions. But for me, its not far fetched that Mandaric who knows how to make money, would want to help his friend and help him make some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 So where was this investment made? Why was the account in his name, not Mandaric's? Why did he 'forget' it for six years - even when questioned directly about it? And if you're going to lie to a journalist, why would you fabricate a story that incriminates you to an offence? But none of those things either proves his guilt or is illegal in itself. At best it's circumstantial evidence of his guilt and not in itself evidence of guilt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 the HMRC have accepted the verdict and will not contest it a jury and judge have found the pair not guilty Thats all you need to know he has done nothing wrong proven to have done nothing wrong and the people who thought he had have accepted he's done nothing wrong End of story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 I would say the worst thing about the judicial system is that just being in court equates to guilty in many peoples eyes. Once accused it seems you are on a hiding to nothing as people will always make their own mind up. As a reporter, I saw lots of almost certainly guilty people get off. I say this as I was in court for in camera evidence that juries didn't hear, as well as being privy to evidence not put before the court. I can't say I ever witnessed a trial where someone I believed to be innocent got done. Does happen of course. I have a close friend who covered the Jill Dando case and she was amazed the police even submitted a file concerning Barry George. Re: Harry. I'm just expressing an opinion that he was lucky to succeed with his defence. But he's been found innocent, so let's leave it at that. Funny that Pompey's financial woes began really when under the chairmanship of that other genial cockernee El Tel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Well Redknapp is not a billionaire for starters... I dont know enough about the case to answer the rest of your questions. But for me, its not far fetched that Mandaric who knows how to make money, would want to help his friend and help him make some. I meant Mandaric as a billionaire. If he wanted to help his friend make money why not just pay him a straightforward bonus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmabbuttshair Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Hmmm, not guilty. Over. On to the next storm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 As a reporter, I saw lots of almost certainly guilty people get off. I say this as I was in court for in camera evidence that juries didn't hear, as well as being privy to evidence not put before the court. I can't say I ever witnessed a trial where someone I believed to be innocent got done. Does happen of course. I have a close friend who covered the Jill Dando case and she was amazed the police even submitted a file concerning Barry George. Re: Harry. I'm just expressing an opinion that he was lucky to succeed with his defence. But he's been found innocent, so let's leave it at that. Funny that Pompey's financial woes began really when under the chairmanship of that other genial cockernee El Tel. No they didn't they started under that russian Milan sold them too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 No they didn't they started under that russian Milan sold them too I'm not a Pompey expert but didn't Venables buy them for a quid and take half a million out the club in under a year, despite the fact that they were relegated and in deep shit? This being shortly before he was barred from being a company director. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Newspapers and broadcasters can be prosecuted if they don't give a fair and accurate report of court cases. I don't think there were any critical points that weren't reported. The Telegraph had a daily live feed on its website other reporters tweeted every jot of evidence. I do support the jury system, but having done jury service twice .. God help us, I met people there who weren't sure how to spell their own names! Be nice if you had some sort of IQ test to qualify you. Oh, I see you are talking about juries. I thought you were talking about Judges! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Well, he's innocent- even if people think otherwise, jury found him innocent. Still would take issue with him claiming not to be greedy (not in a criminal sense but generally) though. Then again, this is a pretty greedy country by and large- summed up by the poster who said something about who wouldn't pay less tax? Can assure you, this is not the case in all nations- many but not all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Well, he's innocent- even if people think otherwise, jury found him innocent. Still would take issue with him claiming not to be greedy (not in a criminal sense but generally) though. Then again, this is a pretty greedy country by and large- summed up by the poster who said something about who wouldn't pay less tax? Can assure you, this is not the case in all nations- many but not all. We have little choice but to accept the logic of that because there is nothing tangible to prove otherwise. However, you'd have to be mad to think the poorest in society receive the same justice as those at the top. How blurred the picture is, is just down to opinion as we'll never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Roughneck Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 The verdict from my courtroom says RICH PEOPLE DO NOT GO TO JAIL. Here's a picture of the jury that I took just before I stood them down.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 We have little choice but to accept the logic of that because there is nothing tangible to prove otherwise. However, you'd have to be mad to think the poorest in society receive the same justice as those at the top. How blurred the picture is, is just down to opinion as we'll never know. Yeah, he's innocent- case closed. As for the rest- like you say we'll never know. Anyway, I thought The Powers That Be said they would be shutting down taxhavens back in 08/09!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambridge Batch Red Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Innocently opened a secret bank account in Monaco in his dog's name to receive tax free 'investments' from his employer. Yeah, an honest mistake, anyone can make. I did this twice last week. I hope HMRC aren't reading this... I'm just glad old 'arry is a giver not a taker, his face might be just that little bit redder if it was the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I'm just glad old 'arry is a giver not a taker, his face might be just that little bit redder if it was the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Innocently opened a secret bank account in Monaco in his dog's name to receive tax free 'investments' from his employer. Yeah, an honest mistake, anyone can make. I did this twice last week. I hope HMRC aren't reading this... I'm just glad old 'arry is a giver not a taker, his face might be just that little bit redder if it was the other way around. If he was a taker I reckon he may even twitch his nose right off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishy Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 If he was a taker I reckon he may even twitch his nose right off V.V Funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhistleHappy Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Who here has never cooked their books,please cast the first stone I did try once. .... followed a recipe book to the letter but it still came out like cardboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Who here has never cooked their books,please cast the first stone Most of us don't get a chance to 'cook the books', we are on PAYE and pay at source and always pay our way legally because we are not afforded a chance to 'cook the books', it's mainly self employed, rich and politicians that get a chance to 'cook the books' and usually do with some aplomb, in fact apparently you don't even need to be able to read and write to 'cook the books' but maths is a bonus though, so here's the first stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Well, he's innocent- even if people think otherwise, jury found him innocent. Still would take issue with him claiming not to be greedy (not in a criminal sense but generally) though. Then again, this is a pretty greedy country by and large- summed up by the poster who said something about who wouldn't pay less tax? Can assure you, this is not the case in all nations- many but not all. I think that without a shadow of doubt he is guilty. They just haven't found the right charge yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I think that without a shadow of doubt he is guilty. They just haven't found the right charge yet! And by that token we all should be looking over our collective shoulders. Anyone ever read "The Trial" by Franz Kafka? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.