| Ben Stokes Not Guilty....... 12:51 - Aug 14 with 1407 views | Blueorder |
I want his solicitor if I get into trouble. |  | | |  |
| Ben Stokes Not Guilty....... on 14:21 - Aug 14 with 1320 views | connorscontract |
Well I want Ben Stokes' next to me if someone comes at me with a bottle. |  | | |
| Ben Stokes Not Guilty....... on 14:54 - Aug 14 with 1273 views | Radlett_blue |
What I don't understand is why the two gay guys, whom Stokes was either defending or abusing depending on whom you believe - didn't give any evidence. Surely their evidence could have indicated who was telling the truth.
Although Stokes has been found not guilty, he doesn't come out of this particularly well & hopefully he might see it as something of a wake-up call.
I can see why he's been put back into the squad for the next Test & while arguably he's suffered by missing an Ashes Tour, but maybe this sends the wrong message, despite the "not guilty" verdict? [Post edited 14 Aug 2018 14:55]
|  | | |
| Ben Stokes Not Guilty....... on 15:02 - Aug 14 with 1248 views | vapour_trail |
| Ben Stokes Not Guilty....... on 14:54 - Aug 14 by Radlett_blue |
What I don't understand is why the two gay guys, whom Stokes was either defending or abusing depending on whom you believe - didn't give any evidence. Surely their evidence could have indicated who was telling the truth.
Although Stokes has been found not guilty, he doesn't come out of this particularly well & hopefully he might see it as something of a wake-up call.
I can see why he's been put back into the squad for the next Test & while arguably he's suffered by missing an Ashes Tour, but maybe this sends the wrong message, despite the "not guilty" verdict? [Post edited 14 Aug 2018 14:55]
|
ECB charges are expected to follow against stokes and hales. No point pre-judging that procedure by not picking him now. Could be some sort of playing sanction imposed even with the not guilty verdict.
A la John terry and the racist allegations a few years back. |  |
| |
| Ben Stokes Not Guilty....... on 16:54 - Aug 14 with 1097 views | acj |
| Ben Stokes Not Guilty....... on 14:54 - Aug 14 by Radlett_blue |
What I don't understand is why the two gay guys, whom Stokes was either defending or abusing depending on whom you believe - didn't give any evidence. Surely their evidence could have indicated who was telling the truth.
Although Stokes has been found not guilty, he doesn't come out of this particularly well & hopefully he might see it as something of a wake-up call.
I can see why he's been put back into the squad for the next Test & while arguably he's suffered by missing an Ashes Tour, but maybe this sends the wrong message, despite the "not guilty" verdict? [Post edited 14 Aug 2018 14:55]
|
They told their story in the press not long after the incident, quoted as saying he was defending them. I don't have a great deal of knowledge on how the legal system works but I think that speaking to the press can be considered as compromising your testimony or prejudicing the trial and thus making it less likely your testimony will be allowed to stand in court.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/10/27/ben-stokes-real-hero-saving-us-sa |  | | |
| Ben Stokes Not Guilty....... on 18:39 - Aug 14 with 998 views | Radlett_blue |
| Ben Stokes Not Guilty....... on 16:54 - Aug 14 by acj |
They told their story in the press not long after the incident, quoted as saying he was defending them. I don't have a great deal of knowledge on how the legal system works but I think that speaking to the press can be considered as compromising your testimony or prejudicing the trial and thus making it less likely your testimony will be allowed to stand in court.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/10/27/ben-stokes-real-hero-saving-us-sa |
Interesting. I think that clearly could have been considered prejudicial but it seems silly that 2 prime witnesses weren't cross-examined or allowed to give evidence. | | | |
| Ben Stokes Not Guilty....... on 18:40 - Aug 14 with 991 views | sparks |
| Ben Stokes Not Guilty....... on 18:39 - Aug 14 by Radlett_blue |
Interesting. I think that clearly could have been considered prejudicial but it seems silly that 2 prime witnesses weren't cross-examined or allowed to give evidence. |
Either party can call who they wish in principle. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Ben Stokes Not Guilty....... on 19:00 - Aug 14 with 963 views | bontcho |
Following the case on cricinfo this seemed the only verdict the jury could give. There were so many holes in the prosecution from the lack of evidence regarding the gay guys, Alex Hales’ role including kicking the man on the floor (it was suggested he could have caused the injuries), the fella admitting he went at him with a bottle. It was interesting that they tried to introduce a lower charge at the start of the trial which suggests they knew it was weak. |  |
| |
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads. | |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
