advertisement


Ben Stokes going down?

Because the prosecution wanted to convict and their evidence wouldn't help with that. I'm sure they found some sub-clause or other to "convincingly" rule out the testimony. That and the wish to reduce the charge to a lesser offence when they realised they were on shaky ground is very suggestive. However, this is pfm - so let me present a hypothesis that is more in keeping with this website: -

Mossad approached the ECB and said that if they used their influence with the ICC to make sure the "abhorrent" practice of integrated Palestinian and Israeli schools cricket was stopped, it could all be made to go away and Stokes would be available for the World Cup. When the nod came from the ECB, Mossad outsourced the work to the CIA, who in turn used the Russian team who had hacked Hillary through a deniable cut out known only as "Donald". The Russian hackers infiltrated the CPS system and upgraded the charge, knowing it wouldn't stick.

The fact that none of this is on the BBC just shows you that is must be true.

https://flicxpitch.wordpress.com/flicx-uk-and-the-icc/icc-competition/palestinianstory/

Of course, all that might just be what they want you to think...
 
MVV said:
Can't say I know who Ben Stokes is or that a brawl is very interesting to me. But I'm interested in why the gay couple interviewed in the press were not called to the court. Why would key witnesses not be called by either the prosecution or the defence?
Click to expand...

Lots of reasons, including: they had character issues which would prejudice the case, their evidence would contradict or undermine the prosecution case, amongst a whole host of other like reasons linked to competent and compellable witnesses.
 
The distortion of truth and perception via social media continues unabated - hence those platforms being filled with fury and conspiracy theories the day after an official acquittal. Dangerous times. People who are clueless setting the agenda and shouting louder than the knowledgable and informed.
 
Prosecution wouldn't call them because they would contradict the story the prosecution had fabricated about Stokes' motives. The defense wouldn't call them because they might have said they were scared, thus proving there had been an affray.
 
I am sure if he were not Ben Stokes famous cricketer this would never have reached court at all .
Unfortunately this type of incident is common place around nightclubs these days .
 
Dozey said:
Prosecution wouldn't call them because they would contradict the story the prosecution had fabricated about Stokes' motives. The defense wouldn't call them because they might have said they were scared, thus proving there had been an affray.
Click to expand...


Supposition?...or are you party to inside information? :rolleyes:
 
Deduction from the facts. I could easily be mistaken, but I have pointed out good reasons on both sides.
 
Some of the reporting I have read seems to back up that assertion. I am very wary of the motives behind the prosecution - sending the file up to National level for a silly incident outside a night club, the sort of thing that happens in every larger town in the country every week? It stinks, there was clearly an agenda somewhere that he must be charged with 'something' so it was passed up the line to 'bigger' fish, who the thinking was, would get a better result. Well that came unstuck, big time.

As to the characters not called, we know only that there was something unreliable about them. Prosecution knew they had no case with them in the box. The reason the defence did not call them is unclear to me - maybe the view was that neither would have been tough enough to withstand a cross-examination? I am sure the Jury had their own view about key witnesses not being called at all - if you really wanted the truth they should have been called - I do not know enough about the law - but the could the Judge have demanded their appearance? - I know there is a concept that there is 'no property in a witness' - the witness is a witness to the court as a whole, neither prosecution nor defence can claim ownership.
 
"I am sure the Jury had their own view about key witnesses not being called at all."

True. The Judge would have told them not to reach any conclusions on reasons why they were not called, but human nature being what it is ...
 
Once again, let’s let assumptions get in the way of the facts. Make up what is not known, because that’s what some do.

The buck will always initially stop with the evidence available that supported, and undermined, the prosecution case, and the subsequent decisions made about disclosing such evidence - from the police to the cps, and then the cps to the prosecuting team, and also to the defence.

We won’t know the detail of this, which is why assumptions and other agendas are formed and circulated. It’s not newsworthy just to deal objectively with factual knowledge and evidence.

But what do I know... ;)

Of interest now is the ECB investigation, and whether any contracted player present at this incident/enquiry engaged and subsequently breached and contractual obligations.
 
JensenHealey said:
As to the characters not called, we know only that there was something unreliable about them. Prosecution knew they had no case with them in the box.
The reason the defence did not call them is unclear to me - maybe the view was that neither would have been tough enough to withstand a cross-examination? .
Click to expand...
I find it puzzling too that they weren’t called but I didn’t see anywhere that there was ‘something unreliable about them’- where did you see that? What makes you think they would “not be tough enough to withstand cross-examination”? That’s an interesting observation.
 
TheDecameron said:
I find it puzzling too that they weren’t called but I didn’t see anywhere that there was ‘something unreliable about them’- where did you see that? What makes you think they would “not be tough enough to withstand cross-examination”? That’s an interesting observation.
Click to expand...


Quote:
A senior legal source told The Telegraph that neither the Crown nor Stokes' legal team had felt able to call the pair.

The source said: 'Mr Barry and Mr O'Connor's story ebbed and flowed backwards and forwards. They were inebriated on the night and their recollection of events was very patchy.' End Quote

A long version, maybe not so reliable, but sounds true: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-walks-team-catalogue-errors-prosecution.html
 
JensenHealey said:
Quote:
A senior legal source told The Telegraph that neither the Crown nor Stokes' legal team had felt able to call the pair.

The source said: 'Mr Barry and Mr O'Connor's story ebbed and flowed backwards and forwards. They were inebriated on the night and their recollection of events was very patchy.' End Quote

A long version, maybe not so reliable, but sounds true: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-walks-team-catalogue-errors-prosecution.html
Click to expand...
Great, that solves the mystery! It seems the doorman was the only person present who wasn’t poleaxed or had a dog in the fight at the time.
 
Can everyone bear in mind that the purpose of a trial isn't to establish the Truth, it's to establish whether or not the prosecution can prove that their case. If you want the truth, you probably need an Enquiry.
 
clifftaylor said:
Can everyone bear in mind that the purpose of a trial isn't to establish the Truth, it's to establish whether or not the prosecution can prove that their case. If you want the truth, you probably need an Enquiry.
Click to expand...

Then the "truth" depends on the terms of reference and who's in charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top