Ben Stokes not guilty

[Nearly Sane]

Mmm, I suspect that in a case where it was Joe Bloggs and John Doe, this might not have had the same result.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-45182868

[ad_orientem]

A six day trail all for a bloody brawl outside a club? FFS!

[Nearly Sane]

A six day trail all for a bloody brawl outside a club? FFS!

'Trail'  . But yep, it is unlikely that the trial of Joe Bloggs would have taken the time.

[SteveH]

'Trail'  . But yep, it is unlikely that the trial of Joe Bloggs would have taken the time.

It's the gutterpress that stokes this kind of thing. (Geddit?)

[Nearly Sane]

It's the gutterpress that stokes this kind of thing. (Geddit?)

Yep, they like to cook it up, probably needs root and branch reform across a broad spectrum, but then not everyone can count themselves among the woakes.

[SteveH]

Stokes! It's a pun! Oh, please yourself.

[Nearly Sane]

Stokes! It's a pun! Oh, please yourself.

Of course I will, after all is the Pope Catholic? Or indeed does a bairstow shit in the woods?  The only thing that would make me happier currantly is having a buttler.

[Rhiannon]

I have been following this story and tbh it seemed to be pretty much a case of 'he said, they said'. I couldn't decide who was telling the truth, who started what and who said what to whom and frankly, I'm not surprised by the verdicts.

[Nearly Sane]

I have been following this story and tbh it seemed to be pretty much a case of 'he said, they said'. I couldn't decide who was telling the truth, who started what and who said what to whom and frankly, I'm not surprised by the verdicts.

In most day to day cases the very fact of being involved in this sort of thing would mean you would be found guilty, especially if caught on camera.

[Rhiannon]

In most day to day cases the very fact of being involved in this sort of thing would mean you would be found guilty, especially if caught on camera.

I have no idea. But this went to a jury trial and everyone was acquitted.

Not that I give a shit about cricket or Ben Stokes.

[Nearly Sane]

I have no idea. But this went to a jury trial and everyone was acquitted.

Not that I give a shit about cricket or Ben Stokes.

And yet there was an affray. This is not a typical trial for this.

[Rhiannon]

Maybe not relevant to your point but it does cast doubt on some of the witness statements.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/aug/14/gay-couple-say-ben-stokes-did-not-deserve-to-face-trial

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe not relevant to your point but it does cast doubt on some of the witness statements.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/aug/14/gay-couple-say-ben-stokes-did-not-deserve-to-face-trial

Fair point. Given the length of trial for people not being called when referred to seems even odder.

[Rhiannon]

Fair point. Given the length of trial for people not being called when referred to seems even odder.

I thought that when reading the court reports. Given that they were central to everything not to even read their statements is very strange. I get that by talking to the press they may have been open to being discredited by one of the defences (I'd heard that Stokes had come to their defence ages ago) but then their evidence calls into question much of the prosecution to start with.

[Nearly Sane]

Yep, agree, in some ways I wonder if the jury felt that the idea of a fair trial was already impossible. Wouldn't be the first time.