JT's day in the dock!

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
cfc ollie said:
I think without actually being in court, it's difficult to make any prediction on what the outcome might be. The whole nature of the case from the outset suggested that there was never going to be any definitive proof one way or another and, much like a jury in crown court case, I'd guess that the magistrate has to make some kind of judgement on whose version of events he believes. There's bound to be an element of subjectivity in it, but without actually seeing the body language and hearing the full answers, it's impossible for us to say whether JT or Anton Ferdinand came over as more trustworthy (for want of a better word).

Bear in mind, JT's legal team made an attempt to have the charges dismissed after the prosecution had finished putting its case and the magistrate refused it, as he felt there was a case to answer. I still feel it could go either way to be honest.
Click to expand...

I would say due to the high profile of this case, there is an argument to be made the judge is feeling pressured into seeing this through to conclusion.

Anyway, from what I've seen Terry's defence has remained consistent.
The prosecution even seems to agree with Terry's version that Ferdinand started it with saying 'calling me a black c***'
Pros then tried to claim dressing room summit happened as Terry was aware of youtube footage. It was established at start, youtube footage first appeared at 18.20.
Terry said it happened 15 minutes after, which would be between 18.10-18.15.
Ferdinand says it was 45 minutes, which would be 18.40-18.45.
However, coach driver has said Terry was on bus by 18.30 which would cast further doubt on Ferdinand's testimony.
Now, to be fair, Ashley Cole has said he thought it was 25-35 minutes which if we are to accept puts doubt on all the above.
However, regardless of time, most crucially of all the prosecution can't prove any such 'tip off' took place.
Cole's evidence has corroborated Terry's story that he told him during the game Ferdinand had accused him of racism.
Pros then tried to discredit Cole's evidence that he saw ferdinand mouth the word 'black' because he wasn't a lip-reader but I would say thats a bit rich given the origin of initial complaint.
Not much to say on the character witnesses, other than they do represent a diverse range of different cultures.
So, without producing any direct witnesses of their own, the prosecution is pinning its hopes on lip-reading and its already been said in court lip-reading isn't 100% reliable.

Now, the judge has to be aware that if guilty, John Terry will carry the tag of 'racist' the rest of his life (actually, he'll probably get it anyway but thats for another time), so he needs be 100% sure in his verdict. I would say there is more than enough reasonable doubt for any objective judge not to convict.
 
blueboy--I like your weathervane! Thats just one of my early memories of SB! Sorry for changing the subject--back to day 4 of the trial of the century!
 
District Line said:
I agree it is PC but you can't just go around calling people a white **** or a black **** etc. in Britain we pride ourselves in being tolerant to people of all ethnic backgrounds and cultures. If we allow this to happen we will have already gone back 50 years. There was an excellent post on the QPR board whereby one poster rightly said at the end of the day we are all originally from Africa and the only variation in skin colour comes from environmental differences. We are all human, why bring someone's skin colour into it.

I would be horrified if I had a child and came home to find out he had been called a "black ****" by another child. It's just abhorrent. So yes technically it is more politically correct than racist but that's just the world we live in, you can't go around calling people that. I'm not saying JT did or didn't just talking about the issue.

To suggest CP is the only one talking sense about it is quite dismissive of the contribution other posters have made. I don't think there really is a right or wrong about it just a matter of opinion. I value yours, CP's and everyone else's just as equally
Click to expand...

Well said, I agree completely, that everything on here is simply opinions. Interestingly though, most people are saying the same thing, just using different routes to get to the same end result. No one condones any kind of abuse, be it Legally racist, or simply abuse.
 
blueboy83 said:
Now, the judge has to be aware that if guilty, John Terry will carry the tag of 'racist' the rest of his life (actually, he'll probably get it anyway but thats for another time), so he needs be 100% sure in his verdict.
Click to expand...

While reading this debate I had been thinking about something I first heard at school in a history lesson many moons ago. When discussing crime and punishment my teacher told us a basic truth which was "Mud sticks". If you throw mud at someone it will stick to them and is the antithesis of "No smoke without fire". Anyone accused will always be guilty to some, usually those who just hear about it second hand, as being definitely guilty. It is the most common slur tactic and used by newspaper editors to sex up the news and gain sales all the time. The public (that is me too) are idiots, we basic our opinions on preferences and self benefit. No one comes out of public scrutiny clean because as the public, despite any evidence showed us, will generally decide guilt or innocence according to our own little private world views. The innocent, whether defending themselves or trying to prosecute those who have abused them, get dragged through the mud too, and no one really cares until it happens to them.
 
Sadly, PolarBear you are spot on!When it is all over(tomorrow afternoon) whatever the result JT will henceforth be a target for a large swathe of people! Having said that--he has a skin like a rhinocerous and it will simply wash over him like all the many other misdemeanors that have hit the headlines during his career! Unfortunately JT is one of those people who always seems to be stepping on a landmine!
 
DferPolarBear said:
While reading this debate I had been thinking about something I first heard at school in a history lesson many moons ago. When discussing crime and punishment my teacher told us a basic truth which was "Mud sticks". If you throw mud at someone it will stick to them and is the antithesis of "No smoke without fire". Anyone accused will always be guilty to some, usually those who just hear about it second hand, as being definitely guilty. It is the most common slur tactic and used by newspaper editors to sex up the news and gain sales all the time. The public (that is me too) are idiots, we basic our opinions on preferences and self benefit. No one comes out of public scrutiny clean because as the public, despite any evidence showed us, will generally decide guilt or innocence according to our own little private world views. The innocent, whether defending themselves or trying to prosecute those who have abused them, get dragged through the mud too, and no one really cares until it happens to them.
Click to expand...

Of course. Look what happened with the Rachel Nickell murder. An innocent man (Colin Stagg) was arrested and imprisoned and then even upon the DNA eventually proving his innocence and the Police releasing him to this day he still gets hate mail and abuse.
 
There's a saying by probably the most successful propaganda minister of all time Joseph Goebbels who claimed “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”. This is exactly how the media works. And as Polar Bear correctly stated most of the time it comes from people who have heard the information second hand.

We (Chelsea fans) know that Terry didn't sleep with his best mates wife. For starters they weren't best mates and secondly it was Bridge's ex-Girlfriend. They were never once married. That doesn't justify what he did but the media made Bridge out to be the victim. Why? Because Bridge is a well known professional football and it would harm Terry even more when the reality is the only victims were Terry's wife and family.

I don't read newspapers and claptrap because I like to think I am more independent and less swayed by the media than others. Clubs like Chelsea, Millwall and even Liverpool to an extent all have siege mentality with regards to the media because of incidents with them in the past.

I don't doubt Terry is a bit of a knob off the pitch but so are many other footballers, yet it's only the likes of him, Ashley Cole, Jermain Defoe etc that make the papers. The biggest thing about the Giggs affair is that it prove there is more than meets the eye. It turns out Giggs the "Saint", the "Legend" has less morals than JT "The scumbag" the "cheat".
 
stop comparing JT to other footballers in order to glorify him..trying to say there are worse men out there....You dont have to compare Frank Lampard to anyone do you? thats because he doesnt behave like a bellend so there is no justification reqd...everyone has their opinion on JT and i dont think the outcome of this hearing will sway any of us in changing what we think of him.
 
Spurlock said:
stop comparing JT to other footballers in order to glorify him..trying to say there are worse men out there....You dont have to compare Frank Lampard to anyone do you? thats because he doesnt behave like a bellend so there is no justification reqd...everyone has their opinion on JT and i dont think the outcome of this hearing will sway any of us in changing what we think of him.
Click to expand...

Lord above! Keep your hair on Spurlock! He plays for us , and therefore we're behind him while he deals with the charges against him! My guess is he will be found innocent but if it goes the other way I'm sure he'll have fewer friends at the Bridge! Like you I agree his demeanor doesn't endear him to outsiders, so the verdict for him will be very impactive on his future!
 
Spurlock said:
stop comparing JT to other footballers in order to glorify him..trying to say there are worse men out there....You dont have to compare Frank Lampard to anyone do you? thats because he doesnt behave like a bellend so there is no justification reqd...everyone has their opinion on JT and i dont think the outcome of this hearing will sway any of us in changing what we think of him.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the congrats Dona.

The thing is with JT (and Lampard to a slightly lesser extent) is there is huge sentiment. JT has been at the club since 14, many Chelsea fans that went to youth games grew up watching him. We have a blindspot admittedly but it's no different to any other club.

Arsenal fans were the same with Thierry Henry, Liverpool are the same with Gerrard, United the same with Giggs.

We know JT isn't a saint but he isn't a devil as some believe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back