are an interesting read and the transcript/comments are on line on most news sites. Does nothing other than reaffirm my view that he’s a nasty piece. BarRed what did you think ? Seems strange to try and deflect on to Alex Hales at that late stage, and can’t not read into the fact that three witnesses haven’t come out to play as it were. Will they sentence straight away ?
Wouldn’t surprise me if he gets a lenient approach based on who he is if found guilty! As is usually the case.
I’m not so sure mate, I don’t think he will have enamoured himself with how he has presented himself and a couple of the comments. Judge might have the hump with him
Being homophobic mimicking gays, flicking a cigarette, attacking someone, trying to bribe a bouncer and trying to deflect blame to his England team mate. Can't see why he won't get off....
Yes but all this (even the video footage) was 'alleged' as some on here pointed out. They asked us to wait until the 2 gay lads gave evidence too: not much joy there though.
Until the verdict is in, it is "alleged". Not defending him BTW, just stating that it isn't yet "proven in a court of law".
Yeh agree mate but call me cynical, the judicial system in this country at present seems intent on defending those who arrogantly persecute innocent people because they simply seem untouchable.
I’m not an expert but it doesn’t strike me that his legal team have played a very good game. And he really might regret what sound to have been a couple of smart remarks - we shall see and I think they will return after lunch !
Can only consider that there was a suspicion that any witness statements that were forthcoming from these parties were not beneficial to either side?
Also their is his arrogance of claiming he walking talking to God and how he claimed self defence when video footage shows it was him walking towards them.
He'll be guilty in the eyes of some on here though, depsite what a court of law presented with the evidence has found.
I suspect he'll be in the same situation again. He's paid a lot of money to get off a very violent attack. CPS clearly didn't have enough evidence to present, turned out to be a complete waste of time and money.
So if you were on a jury would you see through this 'pay off' and find him guilty? Are you saying all the jurors on the trial must've been duped to unanimously acquit?
No i'm saying he's paid a very expensive legal team to find some crumb to find him innocent. The jurors will have been guided as they debated the evidence... it seems there wasn't enough evidence to convict, so ultimately the CPS did a poor job bringing it to trial in the first place. I'm keen to understand why he wasn't guilty and on what grounds. I don't think there are many people who would watch that footage and not think that is an excessively violent attack on a person cowering to try and defend themselves, irrespective of what was said.