The jury has retired ......

I’m sure we’ll know more when the full trial details come out.

But an eyewitness account of something that happened a long time ago isn’t a fantastic piece of evidence.

All the defence lawyer needs to do is ask young Nathan for detail of something else that happened round the event. He either can’t remember, or his memory of that event is proven to be inaccurate. And all of a sudden, your eyewitness is unreliable.

That is the cost of a justice system that’s on its knees. If it takes 2 years for a case to get to court, witnesses pull out, they fail to remember correctly etc etc.

I’ll bet every single member of that jury would bet that Barton did it. But they didn’t have enough evidence to be ‘sure’ he did.

That’s the price of justice when the consequence of putting away an innocent man is the risk.

 

Yeah, he looks an unsavoury character anyway. Then throw the keys away

 

I don't see how requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt can be considered a serious flaw

 

He will have done it. But if our club don't have CCTV footage in the tunnel, Stendel himself admits he didn't see Barton do it to him, Barton denies doing it and the only witness is a work mate it's not a surprise he's got off.

 

They didn't find the prosecution had proved he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt: that's quite different from the jury believing he was not guilty. As it is not permitted to enquire how juries have reached their verdict that is something we will never know.

As far as the witness goes, it is possible for the jury to accept that he thought he saw Barton push Stendel yet still find that the push did not directly lead to the injuries (the injuries being a substantive part of the allegation). That would not amount to perjury; still less to proof of perjury.

 

Given that Barton had both the motive and the opportunity, was seen to barge into Stendel and that the police had to stop him from scarpering straight after I’m at a loss as to what more is needed to secure a conviction? Perhaps now the FA will take action against him but I’m not holding my breath. Perhaps the prospective jurors should have been asked whether they were racist or voted Brexit? I have never before felt ashamed of my country but I do now.

 

Well, if not the “innocent” Mr Barton, then exactly WHO did it? Or did Daniel just slip and fall?

 

Or did Daniel deliberately bash himself on the post just so he could then point the finger at Barton?

 

I'd rather a world where it has to be beyond reasonable doubt that people are convicted than things like this potentially becoming more commonplace:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...the-man-wrongly-convicted-for-of-alice-sebold


Cannot stick Barton and I am pretty certain he will have done it, but sadly that isn't enough.

 

As we don't have a full transcript it's impossible to know how the witness came across. As Donny-Red says above, if he was tested on his other recollections of the day and came across as hazy then he may have been discredited in the eyes of the jury to the extent that they couldn't be sure of his testimony. And let's not forget that Le Joey hired a QC, whereas the prosecution were represented by junior (albeit able and well-connected) counsel.

 

You're right, but the concept itself is not really how we work. I don't remember the score from that day. I could look it up, but that's defeating the object. The only thing I remember of the whole day is the incident making the news when we were in the pub and then being given some facts about that incident from someone who hadn't actually seen it, but was there and knew what happened. I don't mean knew what happened in that he knew Joey Barton had pushed Daniel Stendel, that absolutely was never said, but knew what happened in that Daniel had gone face first into a gate and required dental treatment, rather than, as people suspected until then, he'd got a punch in the face.
I'm not arguing with anything you've said, simply making the point that our memories keep hold of specific events and let other things go. That doesn't in any way change what you've written though.

 

I never once said "beyond reasonable doubt" was a flaw?? However that logic doesn't seem to have been applied on the two occasions I mention.

 

I’ve been on jury service. I found it a bit of an eye opener in terms of what you are actually told about the incident in question. This allows the defence to come up with a completely plausible interpretation of events you really can believe in. Even though common sense tells you otherwise.

 

I was'nt confident of a guilty verdict. From day one.
But I believe if the case had have been under Scottish law. A verdict of 'not proven' would have been the outcome.

Not proven (Scots: No pruiven, Scottish Gaelic: gun dearbhadh) is a verdict available to a court of law in Scotland. ... Scots law requires corroboration; the evidence of one witness, however credible, is not sufficient to prove a charge against an accused or to establish any material or crucial fact.

 

Sorry Jay I was pointing out the tactic used by the defence brief. We all remember different things from that afternoon - but mostly it’s 2nd hand ‘memories’.

Nathan will have (or believe he has) a pretty good memory of the events inside the tunnel (those kinds of things stick with you). But he might not remember who scored the winner, or whether it was purple socks day etc. and the defence brief can use that to cast doubt on his earlier testimony. And there you have the ‘reasonable doubt’.

 

I think the BBC have found the right photo to use of Daniel in their report of the verdict. He definitely looks like he's thinking WTF is happening!


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-59513011

 

Sorry mate but just because Nathan can’t recall specifics about the match that day doesn’t mean that his recollection of the tunnel incident is equally questionable. I can recall the video of the police woman stopping the Fleetwood chairman from driving Barton away after the game but can’t remember the type or make of car involved.

 

So Joey Barton lives to injury someone else again another day. Well done everyone ‍♂️

 

Prosecution Counsel is one of the very best Juniors, who will have covered everything possible.