Stevie Gerrard's Trial

[psl]

The only verdict they could have reached on the evidence, clearly.

[Stefano]

Old news now but the correct verdict, IMO. Should never have even got to trial.

[Chili Palmer]

what? when? who? I thought the world stopped when YNWA goes down! its still the middle of July right?

[psl]

Old news now but the correct verdict, IMO. Should never have even got to trial.

 

Um, absolutely.

[Stew F]

If he'd have been charged with the correct offence he would have been found guilty.

The Southport coppers cocked up. Affray is hard to prove, assault would have been a doddle.

The prosecution played right into Gerrards hands.

[psl]

If he'd have been charged with the correct offence he would have been found guilty.

The Southport coppers cocked up. Affray is hard to prove, assault would have been a doddle.

The prosecution played right into Gerrards hands.

 

Affray is easier to prove as you don't have to prove injury. I think the prosecution did a pretty decent job to be honest.

[Bo Benn]

Being a British law novice, is affray basically the same thing as starting a brawl?

[Falconhoof]

If he'd have been charged with the correct offence he would have been found guilty.

The Southport coppers cocked up. Affray is hard to prove, assault would have been a doddle.

The prosecution played right into Gerrards hands.

 

Nobody cocked up. The defence of self defence was very plausible. I'm pretty sure that defence would apply for assault and a conviction would have therefore been very unlikely IMO.

 

Lot of fuss about nothing.

[psl]

Nobody cocked up. The defence of self defence was very plausible. I'm pretty sure that defence would apply for assault and a conviction would have therefore been very unlikely IMO.

 

Lot of fuss about nothing.

 

Of course Steven Gerrard is innocent. He was proven so and I wouldn't want to suggest anything otherwise...

 

However, from the way the evidence was reported in the press, it really wasn't the verdict that would be reached 99 times out of 100. The fact that all the other co-defendants entered a guilty plea says something.

 

I don't know what you mean by the defence would apply for assault?

Edited July 29, 2009 by psl

[Kahnee]

Nobody cocked up. The defence of self defence was very plausible. I'm pretty sure that defence would apply for assault and a conviction would have therefore been very unlikely IMO.

 

Lot of fuss about nothing.

 

Er, in most cases hitting someone first is usually deemed assault not self defence. His legal team were very clever.

 

Holding the trial in Liverpool was also a stroke of genius

[psl]

Er, in most cases hitting someone first is usually deemed assault not self defence. His legal team were very clever.

 

Holding the trial in Liverpool was also a stroke of genius

 

Cynics might say he ran the 'I'm rich and famous and can't be convicted' defence. Others might say that he was guilty as hell but got away with it because he's Liverpool captain.

 

Not me though, justice was clearly done.

[Kahnee]

Cynics might say he ran the 'I'm rich and famous and can't be convicted' defence. Others might say that he was guilty as hell but got away with it because he's Liverpool captain.

 

Not me though, justice was clearly done.

 

Clearly. Of that there can be no doubt.

 

Why the other bloke wasn't done for wasting police time remains a mystery

[Molby]

Cynics might say he ran the 'I'm rich and famous and can't be convicted' defence. Others might say that he was guilty as hell but got away with it because he's Liverpool captain.

 

Not me though, justice was clearly done.

 

 

and half the jury could have been Blue

 

justice will now be done when the manc g******* can't get a story in the Sun, along the lines of 'my hell at hands of Liverpool skipper' and also gets regular hassle when he goes out on Merseyside, gets his car done in, house daubed in s**** etc

[Chili Palmer]

Cynics might say he ran the 'I'm rich and famous and can't be convicted' defence. Others might say that he was guilty as hell but got away with it because he's Liverpool captain.

 

Not me though, justice was clearly done.

 

 

not a chance. Justice would have been allowing Stevie another 3 uppercuts on the c***.

[CarraLegend]

The correct decision, now hopefully that manc gets seriously leathered then he'll have something to cry about.

[Stefano]

Who knows what the horrible get said. Stevie is a honest lad and I believe his version of events. They released a clearer CCTV video after he was aquitted which clearly showed the manc jump up and get in Gerrard's face.

[johngibo YPC]

Stevie needs to calm down. He was offering our own fans out before the St Gallen game!

[psl]

The correct decision, now hopefully that manc gets seriously leathered then he'll have something to cry about.

 

It was the correct decision in terms of what I wanted.

 

It certainly doesn't appear to have been the correct decision based on the evidence. But who gives a s***.

[Stefano]

It was the correct decision in terms of what I wanted.

 

It certainly doesn't appear to have been the correct decision based on the evidence.

 

How so?

[Mike]

Stevie needs to calm down. He was offering our own fans out before the St Gallen game!

hmmm i heard about this, the young urchins offered him out more like

 

how was the party btw dude? i don't think you would have wanted us there...

Edited July 29, 2009 by Mike

[johngibo YPC]

hmmm i heard about this, the young urchins offered him out more like

 

depends who is telling the story i guess!

[psl]

How so?

 

Because his actions as shown by the CCTV appear to go well past self-defence. He even apologised in his interview, which was a bizarre decision by his solicitor to be honest. His co-defendants (was it six of them?) all entered pleas on the strength of the evidence because they knew they didn't have the celebrity defence. The victim appeared to come up to proof and reacted well to cross-examination.

 

I can only go on how it was reported though.

[Stefano]

Didn't you say it was the right decision based on the evidence? Or have I missed something?

[psl]

Didn't you say it was the right decision based on the evidence? Or have I missed something?

 

I said it wasn't the right decision on the evidence.

[Stefano]

You said not guilty was the only decision they could have reached based on the evidence.