Terry Court Case * Mod Note #51 *

Kirby

While that is true about the onus being on the accuser, not the accused...... in civil court it's not "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's a "preponderance of the evidence".

What that means in laymans terms is that in a criminal court, say a murder trial, the judge and jury can't just find a guy guilty just because they think he is guilty. There has to be evidence.

In a civil court the burden of proof is alot lower. The judge can find somebody guilty if they simply don't believe them. They don't have to have proof. It is why you often see people winning criminal cases and than losing civil cases on the same charge. So if Anton decided to sue Mr Terry, he would undoubtedly win.....because nobody believes Terry to be honest. They just can't prove it.

It's why Suarez got banned. There was virtually no evidence. But he kept lying about it so the FA just used common sense and found him guilty. But in an actual court it's not about common sense. It's about evidence.

Hope that clears things up for you.

Masked Man

Kess73 wrote: »

Will have a look later for the interviews that Terry gave last year around the time of the interview. In at least one he says that he used industrial language but nothing like the racist language he was accused of.

This is the earliest statement I can find from him

"I've seen that there's a lot of comments on the internet with regards to some video footage of me in today's game."I'm disappointed that people have leapt to the wrong conclusions about the context of what I was seen to be saying to Anton Ferdinand.
"I thought Anton was accusing me of using a racist slur against him. I responded aggressively, saying that I never used that term. I would never say such a thing and I'm saddened that people would think so.
"I have known Anton for a long time and spoke to him about it after the game and there was no problem between us.
"I congratulated him on their win. He has not accused me of any wrongful remark. It was clear it was all a misunderstanding at the time.
"After the result today I am saddened to be dealing with these wrongful allegations. I am the proud captain of one of the most internationally diverse teams in the Premier League and I absolutely believe that there is no place for racism in sport and indeed in any walk of life."

That was the night of the match. I could be wrong but I don't think JT changed his story. Unless your right and he said something in an interview a few days later, I only looked for articles on the 23rd and 24th.

s_carnage

So just to recap:

Why Terry won’t be found guilty

-The defence argue John Terry was merely repeating back what Anton Ferdinand said to him. Terry argues he heard Ferdinand accusing him of calling Ferdinand a “black c**t”.
- The defence painted Ferdinand as an unreliable witness.
- Lip-reading is not a science.
- Ashley Cole’s evidence supports Terry’s claim that Ferdinand said “black”
- Several character witnesses support defence’s argument that Terry has endured abuse on and off the football pitch for years but has never snapped and remains calm.
- Terry claimed he was aware there were cameras on him so if he wanted to racially abuse someone he would whisper it in their ear.
- Terry plays for a football club with players of different races from around the world and as captain, it is his role to integrate them in to the club. He has worked with Didier Drogba and Marcel Desailly’s charities that help Africa.

Why Terry will be found guilty

- Ferdinand says he did not accuse Terry of a racial slur on the pitch. How could Terry be repeating “black c**t” if Ferdinand never said it?
- The prosecution argue that Ferdinand doesn’t have the sophistication or motivation to invent a false accusation.
- The lip-reading experts gave the opinion that Terry said “you fu*king black c**t (pause) you fu*king knobhead” which is not a question, or repetition, but an insult.
- Terry used the word “you” in his first statement about what he said to Ferdinand. “You black c**t.” This then changed to “a f**king black c**t?”.
- The prosecution argue that if Terry was merely repeating back what Ferdinand said, why did he add an extra “f**king” in to what he said?
- The prosecution argue that Terry was using what he perceived as a vulnerability to insult Ferdinand in response to Ferdinand insulting him about “sh**ging his mate’s missus”. In the same game, Terry called QPR goalkeeper a “fat c**t” so used the first description of Ferdinand that came to mind when calling him a “black c**t”.
- Cole was 25 yards away when he claims to see Ferdinand say “black”. If the defence want evidence from lip-reading experts who’ve had the benefit of video replay to be discounted, how can Cole’s evidence taken from a football game be relied upon?
- Prosecution agree that Terry is not guilty of being a racist but is guilty of making a racist remark.

http://www.byfarthegreatestteam.com/posts/reasons-why-terry-will-and-wont-be-found-guilty/

wonderfullife

Kirby wrote: »

While that is true about the onus being on the accuser, not the accused...... in civil court it's not "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's a "preponderance of the evidence".

What that means in laymans terms is that in a criminal court, say a murder trial, the judge and jury can't just find a guy guilty just because they think he is guilty. There has to be evidence.

In a civil court the burden of proof is alot lower. The judge can find somebody guilty if they simply don't believe them. They don't have to have proof. It is why you often see people winning criminal cases and than losing civil cases on the same charge.

Hope that clears things up for you.

Balance of probability/preponderance of evidence - same thing - the test the judge employs is lower than in a criminal case. anyway this isn't a civil case, it's a criminal charge and a straightforward not guilty upcoming.

Kirby

wonderfullife wrote: »

Balance of probability/preponderance of evidence - same thing - the test the judge employs is lower than in a criminal case. anyway this isn't a civil case, it's a criminal charge and a straightforward not guilty upcoming.

Yes, but you said "in any court case" which is incorrect and why I explained the difference between civil and criminal court and the difference between reasonable doubt and preponderance of the evidence.

Kess73

wonderfullife wrote: »

you're so wrong on the bolded bit it's untrue. In any court case it's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt (or in a civil trial to prove on the balance of probability of guilt). Terry is presumed innocent from the get-go, he doesn't have to prove anything in any context. If the prosecution can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then he will be found not guilty. There is plenty of reasonable doubt here from a legal perspective.

The fact that there is evidence that shows Terry showing words that could be taken as being racist and the fact that Terry is doing so in a perturbed/angry manner does mean that their is evidence that Terry has to refute.


If it were simply as case of Terry not having to prove anything, then he should be able to sit in silence for the whole thing and the prosecution would be the only ones talking.

Terry (or rather his legal team) does have to make a convincing case as to why the evidence on show does not show him making a racist comment.

Yes he is innocent until proven guilty, but he does have to prove that what he said was not meant in a racist manner or at the very least coinvince the judge of that so that he continues to be regarded as innocent.

Felexicon

Kess73 wrote: »

Will have a look later for the interviews that Terry gave last year around the time of the interview. In at least one he says that he used industrial language but nothing like the racist language he was accused of.

I'm fairly sure you're correct there, can't search for it at the moment but I remember screaming at the TV calling JT a liar

Kirby

Thats because he is a habitual liar. He has to found not guilty because they can't actually prove anything but the world and his brother knows what really went on here. He got annoyed and used racist comments. He can try and talk his way around it but it will follow him for the rest of his career.

smileyj1987

Professional Footballers' Association chairman Clarke Carlisle has called for John Terry to be sacked if found guilty in his race charge trial on Friday. I would say that would be near impossible he took take Chelsea to the cleaners if they did sack him . But maybe clubs should be allowed write it into contracts about racist abuse if you are found guilty of it they can rip up your contract .

Read More :
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11668/7895312/PFA-chief-warning-over-Terry

GavRedKing

s_carnage wrote: »

So just to recap:

http://www.byfarthegreatestteam.com/posts/reasons-why-terry-will-and-wont-be-found-guilty/

Terry called QPR goalkeeper a “fat c**t” so used the first description of Ferdinand that came to mind when calling him a “black c**t”.

This is what I thought Terry had said first, ddint think it was aimed at Ferdinand but at Kenny whos been called Fatty Kenny in the past.

wonderfullife

Kirby wrote: »

Yes, but you said "in any court case" which is incorrect and why I explained the difference between civil and criminal court and the difference between reasonable doubt and preponderance of the evidence.

"In any court case it's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt (or in a civil trial to prove on the balance of probability of guilt)."

Kess73 wrote: »

The fact that there is evidence that shows Terry showing words that could be taken as being racist and the fact that Terry is doing so in a perturbed/angry manner does mean that their is evidence that Terry has to refute.


If it were simply as case of Terry not having to prove anything, then he should be able to sit in silence for the whole thing and the prosecution would be the only ones talking.

Terry (or rather his legal team) does have to make a convincing case as to why the evidence on show does not show him making a racist comment.

Yes he is innocent until proven guilty, but he does have to prove that what he said was not meant in a racist manner or at the very least coinvince the judge of that so that he continues to be regarded as innocent.

Look you're wrong on this, i spent enough time cramming my life away doing Law in UCD lol......

Terry does not have to prove a single thing and yes if his defence team felt silence would be the best defence then he could very well stay silent. It's up to his defence team to decide the best defence for him and in this case they've decided it's to highlight his version of events. He doesn't have to prove a single thing; the onus is firmly on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, of his guilt.

Kirby

Which is why he will be found not guilty, as I said.

He is still guilty as sin though. I mean there are much worse crimes and I'm sure he regrets it but he said what he said and should get a ban for it. But he won't because the FA wont dare contradict the courts. And that's a shame

Kess73

wonderfullife wrote: »

"In any court case it's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt (or in a civil trial to prove on the balance of probability of guilt)."


Look you're wrong on this, i spent enough time cramming my life away doing Law in UCD lol......

Terry does not have to prove a single thing and yes if his defence team felt silence would be the best defence then he could very well stay silent. It's up to his defence team to decide the best defence for him and in this case they've decided it's to highlight his version of events. He doesn't have to prove a single thing; the onus is firmly on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, of his guilt.

Fine. Anyone on trial can just keep their mouth shut and just sit back and rely on the prosecution not being able to prove guilt.


But this has not happened, and Terry (and his defence team) have been trying to convince the judge that what Terry said was not racist. The law does say that the onus is on the prosecution and I am not debating that. But the very fact that Terry and co have been talking means that they are trying to convince the judge that Terry is still innocent.

My arguement is that the evidence that is available to the prosecution means that Terry and his team have to give Terry's side of things in order to prevent Terry from looking guilty.

colly_06

Will there be white doves if he's cleared?

wonderfullife

Kess73 wrote: »

Fine. Anyone on trial can just keep their mouth shut and just sit back and rely on the prosecution not being able to prove guilt.


But this has not happened, and Terry (and his defence team) have been trying to convince the judge that what Terry said was not racist. The law does say that the onus is on the prosecution and I am not debating that. But the very fact that Terry and co have been talking means that they are trying to convince the judge that Terry is innocent.

My arguement is that the evidence that is available to the prosecution means that Terry and his team have to give Terry's side of things in order to prevent Terry from looking guilty.

it's rare enough for silence to be employed as a defence. It's not about Terry trying to convince the judge he's not racist, it's about putting sufficient doubt out there that he is not guilty of the offence he's being charged with. Even if he is found guilty (which i find massively unlikely) it doesn't mean he's a racist, just that he's guilty of a racist offence.

Put it this way - if Suarez case was up in court i'd most definitely believe he'd have been acquitted, and if he was somehow found guilty it wouldn't make him a racist, just guilty of a racist offence. Both Suarez and Terry have plenty of supporting testimony to convince people neither are inherently racist. (basically if Terry had called Scholes a "ginger cnut" or Kenny a "fat cnut" he's not necessarily inherently hateful of gingers and fatties.......). Still, a guilty racist offence would stain massively.

It should be a really straightforward not guilty unless the Magistrate is playing career politics.

ricero

let there be justice i believe in John Terrys innocence. Ferdinand is a born liar who is trying to get his name in the headlines, he craves the fame

ArmaniJeanss

wonderfullife wrote: »

It should be a really straightforward not guilty unless the Magistrate is playing career politics.

Dunno, the magistrate has done hundreds of these cases and knows what the burden/barrier of proof is better than random internet users, and isn't open to persuasion like in a jury trial.
Ditto the CPS know what evidence is required to get a conviction and wouldn't waste time unless they felt that there was enough to convict. Hence their 90% success rate.

I'll go guilty, you can laugh in 5 minutes.

citytillidie

wonderfullife wrote: »

you're so wrong on the bolded bit it's untrue. In any court case it's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt (or in a civil trial to prove on the balance of probability of guilt). Terry is presumed innocent from the get-go, he doesn't have to prove anything in any context. If the prosecution can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then he will be found not guilty. There is plenty of reasonable doubt here from a legal perspective.

Pity others did not think of that in the other case were the player was guilty from the outset by all media and fans apart from fans of his club

ThunbergsAreGo

GavRedKing wrote: »

This is what I thought Terry had said first, ddint think it was aimed at Ferdinand but at Kenny whos been called Fatty Kenny in the past.

You cant go abusing the fattys! sack him

Kirby

wonderfullife wrote: »

Even if he is found guilty (which i find massively unlikely) it doesn't mean he's a racist, just that he's guilty of a racist offence. .

Thats a line that is trotted out all the bloody time and its complete bollox. It's like claiming somebody isn't a murderer because that only killed this one guy this one time

If you say something racist, you are a racist. You can realise you have done wrong and amend your ways in the future but that doesn't change what you said.

wonderfullife

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Dunno, the magistrate has done hundreds of these cases and knows what the burden/barrier of proof is better than random internet users, and isn't open to persuasion like in a jury trial.
Ditto the CPS know what evidence is required to get a conviction and wouldn't waste time unless they felt that there was enough to convict. Hence their 90% success rate.

I'll go guilty, you can laugh in 5 minutes.

the CPS had to go after him, public interest - too high profile an allegation. ha we'll see in a few mins i suppose.

GavRedKing

From SKyNews twitter

Chief magistrate Howard Riddle now in court

Will make a few points before making conclusion.

Riddle says issue is not to work out if John Terry is a racist. Lot of evidence to the contrary. He is not.

Shoudl get a decision soon........

Chucky the tree

I'll predict he's guilty.

wonderfullife

Kirby wrote: »

Thats a line that is trotted out all the bloody time and its complete bollox. It's like claiming somebody isn't a murderer because that only killed this one guy this one time

If you say something racist, you are a racist. You can realise you have done wrong and amend your ways in the future but that doesn't change what you said.

The Chief Magistrate just said in his opening remarks:

"The issue is not whether John Terry is racist, there is a lot of evidence to say he is not racist"

I'm hoping that's not a preface to a guilty verdict but sounds like it....ominous

UpTheSlashers

Judge about to deliver verdict.

https://twitter.com/ccdavies

GavRedKing

Not looking good for Terry .

Riddle says AF 'brave' to give evidence. 'Little or no good reason for him to lie.'

Riddle says 'overall' AF to be a reliable witness.

Mr.Crinklewood

Sound terrible on Sky, and bloody photographer keeps getting in the way.

cgpg5

"it is impossible to be sure the words spoken by Mr Terry at the relevant time"
"and also impossible to be sure what was said to him by AF"

ThunbergsAreGo

Kirby wrote: »

Thats a line that is trotted out all the bloody time and its complete bollox. It's like claiming somebody isn't a murderer because that only killed this one guy this one time

If you say something racist, you are a racist. You can realise you have done wrong and amend your ways in the future but that doesn't change what you said.

Racism - a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.

GavRedKing

Sky News

Even with all the help it is impossible to be sure exactly what was said at relevant time says magistrate.

Crucial fact no one other than #Terry has given evidence as to what he said, says magistrate.

Handy11

Not Guilty

UpTheSlashers

Terry cleared.

cgpg5

Not guilty! Proper order

willowthewisp

He got off

wonderfullife

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Dunno, the magistrate has done hundreds of these cases and knows what the burden/barrier of proof is better than random internet users, and isn't open to persuasion like in a jury trial.
Ditto the CPS know what evidence is required to get a conviction and wouldn't waste time unless they felt that there was enough to convict. Hence their 90% success rate.

I'll go guilty, you can laugh in 5 minutes.

Kirby

wonderfullife wrote: »

The Chief Magistrate just said in his opening remarks:

"The issue is not whether John Terry is racist, there is a lot of evidence to say he is not racist"

I'm hoping that's not a preface to a guilty verdict but sounds like it....ominous

That's just something racist people say to make themselves feel better. Like ugly people saying beauty is only skin deep. It's a cod. Racism is Racism.

GavRedKing

Caveman1

Wonder what the FA will do now, delighted for Terry

Chucky the tree

Looking forward to the FA sweeping this under the carpet.

Melion

Video evidence of terry - Not Guilty
Evras word against Suarez - 8 game ban

Oh the English fa are comedians

Masked Man

Kess,

Riddle: ‪#Terry‬ has always stood by his account of what happened and Ashley Cole confirmed he mentioned incident on pitch.

Jigga

He is not racist he just says racist things. What a joke

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

IamtheWalrus

Done now. Let's move on.

ricero

super john terry. the Ferdinand brothers really are scum

No need for it, cut out.

GavRedKing

Here comes the shit storm in 3......2........1.......

killwill

Melion wrote: »

Video evidence of terry - Not Guilty
Evras word against Suarez - 8 game ban

Oh the English fa are comedians

No Suarez' admition of guilt- 8 game ban. FFS build a bridge.

cgpg5

Lol your man on sky news. John Terry is likely to leave the court and go straight on holiday. the way he said it you'd swear the plane was ready for him to head now

colly_06

I bet he'll come out of the court in his Chelsea gear.

maximoose

Waiting for the inevitable pic of Terry coming out of the courtroom with Terry celebrating behind him.