Stokes - Interview with gay couple

It was doubted by some that Ben Stokes was telling the truth about defending the gay couple. This interview puts that one to bed.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-say-ben-stokes-did-not-deserve-to-face-trial

 

Brilliant. Just shows how easy it is to make assumptions @dreamboy3000

 

So why didn't the defence call them? Very odd.
If what they are saying is true then it would have lent great credence to Stokes' defence. Stokes himself could offer little in the way of supporting evidence when giving testimony. Very strange trial all round.

 

It is strange but it will be for a good reason. He was unanimously found not guilty so clearly didnt need the evidence.

Hopefully this will put things to bed and teach a few people on here not to make sweeping statements based on viewing a fraction of the evidence. I doubt it though!

 

Some people may have got the police involved. Stokes instead decided he would use it as an opportunity to break someones eye socket.

Spectemur agendo

 

The only reason i can think is that they weren't seen as plausable witnesses.
I can see him now after scoring a century at trent bridge kissing his bat and talking to god: bonkers that lad.

 

But ....the other bloke was unanimously found not guilty , so where does that leave the Gay couples story now

 

They weren't on trial for abusing or assaulting the gay couple. And personally I feel this is possibly why they weren't made to testify.

 

I stand by my view. Don't know how it's self defence when he walked towards two guys on his own to attack them. Don't know how he can claim he was sticking up for gays when he's on camera mimicking them taking the piss. He's got a really shady past including being sent home from Australia. He tried to shift the blame to a team mate. This won't be the last time he gets caught up in something.

 

Ridiculous. Just hope you don't ever get called up for jury service.

 

I see your point, but maybe the piss taking was all in good fun? Not everyone get pissy at a bit of mickey taking...

 

You're wasting your time, mate. Despite only seeing a snippet of CCTV footage without sound or context, he's made his decision that Stokes is a homophobe, despite the couple making a very public statement thanking him for sticking up for them.

 

Stokes defence was that he was defending the couple and Hale from attack and used reasonable force to do so

 

Ali already admitted hitting one of the couple with a bottle. That was already ascertained.

 

What gives Stokes the right to knock someone out, breaking their eye socket? The evidence said "brushed the shoulder"

He's been found not guilty, the judge led the jury to that verdict. I'm not contesting that. The issue remains to me that Stokes did something the vast majority of people wouldn't do, with force against someone backing away in defence that an even more vast majority wouldn't have used.

 

Can't honestly see the point in debating this any further to be honest. They've made their decision, viewing the entire available evidence. If they felt it was disproportionate then i'd have thought the verdict would've been different.

Both males at certain points had weapons in their hands. You don't know the full context and are making assumptions and judgments against Stokes on snippets of evidence. That's fine but I can see we're going round in circles

 

i don’t think he did he admitting to having a bottle in his hand and brushing the guys shoulder when he put his hands up to defend himself , one of the Gay guys kicks Ali when he’s on the floor The first time

 

Absolutely bang on mate - times will tell.

 

See my previous post- im done! Cheers!

 

Ok