That's all it can be surely? It seems clear from the evidence that Barton shoved into the back of him.
Laughing at the great legal minds on here who can say he is definitely guilty beyond all reasonable doubt despite not having heard/seen the relevant evidence themselves. Clearly it's Joe Bloggs sat in front of his computer who knows the correct verdict and not the 10 jurors who heard several days' worth of evidence and will have been fully directed as to the standards and tests to be applied in considering their verdict...
It wasn't caught on CCTV. Stendel didn't see Barton push him. Barton denied it. The only person who saw the incident was someone you can't call impartial. I have no doubt Barton did it but looking at the evidence given it's not a shock the not guilty verdict didn't take long for them to decide.
Well we've also got better football coaches/analysts than any professional ones on here, so I guess it's possible...
Yeah. It seems beyond doubt that the contact happened so there must be some other aspect to it that the prosecution didn't satisfy. Given the length of deliberations and unanimity it seems as if it wasn't a difficult decision
“Is that the same Daniel Gladstone Stendel, who in 1946 fell down the cellar of the Victory Inn and received £100 compensation?”
I'd say it was legally correct, not right. But whatever, I'm sure Chloe will fu ck up again at some point and hopefully she'll get banged up then.
Does Mr Kirby now get prosecuted for perjury? I assume he stood up in court and said he SAW Barton barge into our manager, thus causing the injuries. If he lied then surely he gets done for that?
That's a point, so in a case like this why does the witness not get done for perjury or whatever? He clearly lied in court...