A "not guilty" verdict would mean the magistrate had bought into the ridiculous argument that Terry was merely repeating Anton's words - in which case, it should be the magistrate up in the dock pleading diminished responsibility
Spot on. We all remember only too well, Carlisle's "loyalty" to our Club after he was given months off and checked into rehab - all paid by the Club of course.
He says all that and yet might have to represent Terry in some capacity - Britain's brainiest footballer?
He also says that abusing someone should result in suspension - we'd never get a game of football. He then says that they need to do something about covert racism - it was caught on camera. Was he drunk?
Sorry Goldhawk but that is not correct. Because of the burden of proof, it is only if the Magistrate is sure that Terry's case is wrong and cannot be believed that he can be found guilty. He will not be buying into the lie, he will merely be finding that the case is not proven. We don't have that half way house in England unlike Scotland and therefore Terry would have to be given the benefit of the doubt. That is the flaw of our criminal system. It is based on the belief that the judge or jury will always be able to spot the truth and see when someone is lying. Lying professional witnesses are the single biggest causes of miscarriages of justice.
Another point that may well be interesting is the fact that the Defence did make a submission of no case to answer. it is rare in the Magistrates court because the Magistrate is both judge and jury. He decides legal submissions as well as the issue of guilt. Legally the elements of the offence were all there in the prosecution evidence. Submissions of no case to answer are always hopeless if they are based on the witnesses not being credible. In effect, you would be asking the judge to throw the case out because it is obvious that Anton could not be believed. That is normally such a hopeless argument to make out that I assume it was only done out of fear of what would come out of JT's gob. The fact that the submission was made shows to me that the Defence team did not have much faith in the credibility of their client and his evidence.
We should have the same options as the sweaties. Guilty, not proven and not guilty. People just assume not guilty means the person is innocent which is clearly untrue. As worst, Terrys case would be not proven in jockland.
The most ridiculous part of the defence submission was that someone in the crowd had shouted the offending words at exactly the same moment Terry was alleged to have said them, the chances of that make the lottery odds look generous...
i know, I fully expect Teflon Terry to squirm out of it while anyone with half a brain cell could see he lost it that game as is 100% guilty.
I thought the FA had relegated us for a sec! "14.05 Former QPR and West Ham player Andy Impy joins the Ferdinand clan in the public gallery. Further football news: Rangers will start the new season in Division 3." I wouldnt put it past them.
He wont be sacked but he should get more than Suarez 8 games but I dont think he will if hes found guilty.
This has taken far too long. Should have got Judge Judy to do it. It would have been over in 23 minutes (including the ad' break.)
Knew it. It is impossible to be sure the words spoken by Terry at the relevant time. Also, impossible to be sure what was said to him by Anton Ferdinand. Meanwhile, Terry has "effectively given the same account throughout". Bollocks has he.
