John Terry Not Guilty

Bradders_1983

Bradders as you know he is guilty why weren't you called by the prosecution?

You know what i mean...he said it and has squirmed his way out of saying it by saying he was asking Anton if he called him what was said...ridulous really, ive seen it so many times, as we all have probably.

se9addick

Not guilty means he wasn't found guilty, it does mean he is innocent.

But in this country your innocent until proven guilty, therefore if you're proven not guilty you are innocent.

DRF

It did raise some interesting questions about when abuse is 'too much'. Should it be OK to slag off someone's mother or wife or children but not their race?

Ollywozere

OJ Simpson....just saying
;-)

Huskaris

Not guilty does not mean someone did not do it to be honest. It means they were found innocent. Have you ever been in a situation where its a "his word against mine" situation. The fact is that they could not find him guilty with the burden of proof required in a court of law. That does not mean that he would be found not guilty were it to be a civil case or by the FA.

Here's an example (albeit a US one)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Blake_(actor)#Murder_trial_and_acquittal

A man called Robert Blake (fantastic actor in a film called Lost Highway) was found not guilty in a murder trial but in a civil trial was found responsible and forced to pay damages.

The issue is the burden of proof to be honest. He was racist, we know he was racist, you just can't prove it 100%.

I don't dislike John Terry myself by the way. I just think people need to stop saying he didn't do it just because he was found not guilty.

heavenSE7

Well how do you know 100% that he did do it? You don't. Yes, we've all seen the clip and I for one believe John Terry. Why would he have said it seconds before Ashley Cole walked past, who is a friend, who went to court to defend him and is black.

JiMMy 85

found not guilty but he'll continue to get picked apart by the 'im so perfect' on here.

I don't think many of us profess to be perfect, far from it, however I would like to think most people have a better moral compass than Mr Terry.

so those with a better 'moral compass' should agree that being found not guilty should mean the end of the matter.

It's the end of the matter re. ths trial, but whether you like it or not, I, and hopefully many others, will still detest the man and make clear how we feel.

cafcpolo

Don't like the guy much but there was only ever going to be one verdict considering how weak the prosecution was. Only Terry knows what he said, the fact that the only person who reported it was sat at home watching it on TV sums it up for me. Correct verdict given.

CafcCrazy

Not guilty does not mean someone did not do it to be honest. It means they were found innocent. Have you ever been in a situation where its a "his word against mine" situation. The fact is that they could not find him guilty with the burden of proof required in a court of law. That does not mean that he would be found not guilty were it to be a civil case or by the FA.

Here's an example (albeit a US one)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Blake_(actor)#Murder_trial_and_acquittal

A man called Robert Blake (fantastic actor in a film called Lost Highway) was found not guilty in a murder trial but in a civil trial was found responsible and forced to pay damages.

The issue is the burden of proof to be honest. He was racist, we know he was racist, you just can't prove it 100%.

I don't dislike John Terry myself by the way. I just think people need to stop saying he didn't do it just because he was found not guilty.

But at the end of the day he was found innocent %100 how are we to know any better than the courts?

CafcCrazy

But at the end of the day he was found innocent %100, how are we to know any better than the courts? Either way you want to look at it, he is still innocent and nothing more on the matter should be said unless more evidence can be provided. Sorry but that's the way our justice system works.

MrOneLung

He is a scummy person - an innocent, non racist scummy person though.

Bexley Dan

Think the ferdinands need to take a look at themselves personally - Terry may be no angel but i don't for one minute think he is either racist or is stupid enough to say what he was accused of and his explanation that he was repeating sarcastically what he thought ferdinand had accused him of is highly plausible and i think the football world probably knows this and is another reason Terry got the nod over ferdinand's brother in the euros.

redman

The FA said they would not act because of the court trial . I presume there will now be an FA investigation as there was with Suarez. The burden of proof is much less and therefore I would expect him to be found guilty as Suarez was.
Or, as I suspect is usually the case, an England player is going to be treated differently from a South American who speaks poor English

ValleyGary

It's the end of the matter re. ths trial, but whether you like it or not, I, and hopefully many others, will still detest the man and make clear how we feel.

you go for it fella

MrOneLung

The FA said they would not act because of the court trial . I presume there will now be an FA investigation as there was with Suarez. The burden of proof is much less and therefore I would expect him to be found guilty as Suarez was.
Or, as I suspect is usually the case, an England player is going to be treated differently from a South American who speaks poor English

Even though he abused him in native language Spanish?

Jints

It's terrible how ignorant people are of our own criminal justice system.

In Scotland there are three verdicts - guilty, not proven and innocent. Here there are only two - guilty or not guilty.

Terry has not been "found" innocent and could not have been. The jury were asked whether he was guilty beyone reasonable doubt. If there was reasonable doubt then he is found "not guilty".

The jury were not asked whether he was innocent or not and they gave no indication either way. The only think we know is that after hearing evidence and argument, the jury believed that there was reasonable doubt.

se9addick

It's terrible how ignorant people are of our own criminal justice system.

In Scotland there are three verdicts - guilty, not proven and innocent. Here there are only two - guilty or not guilty.

Terry has not been "found" innocent and could not have been. The jury were asked whether he was guilty beyone reasonable doubt. If there was reasonable doubt then he is found "not guilty".

The jury were not asked whether he was innocent or not and they gave no indication either way. The only think we know is that after hearing evidence and argument, the jury believed that there was reasonable doubt.

How ironic that you criticise others understandings but appear to have no clue of the difference between a magistrates court and a crown court.

LawrieAbrahams

Except this was a summons at a magistrates' court heard by a District Judge.

sirjohnhumphrey

Surely the Stephen Lawrence case has shown that a verdict of not guilty does not mean you are actually innocent.

LargeAddick

if twelve people have sat through the evidence, and none of us on here have, and have found him not guilty then that is what he is, not guilty, and I for one trust their judgement.

LawrieAbrahams

There was no jury.

suzisausage

The jury judge sat through evidence and found it not conclusive enough to find him guilty. They he hasn't 'found him not guilty'.

bristoladdick

As LA says, there was no jury.

ValleyGary

i heard there was no jury

IdleHans

Sadly, being a c*** is not against the law.

colthe3rd

It's the end of the matter re. ths trial, but whether you like it or not, I, and hopefully many others, will still detest the man and make clear how we feel.

you go for it fella

I take it you like John Terry then?

suzisausage

The reaction on twitter from some footballers is interesting. As is sadly some input from some pretty sad individuals let out of school early.

there is definitely a difference in opinion across football!

Jints

It's terrible how ignorant people are of our own criminal justice system.

In Scotland there are three verdicts - guilty, not proven and innocent. Here there are only two - guilty or not guilty.

Terry has not been "found" innocent and could not have been. The jury were asked whether he was guilty beyone reasonable doubt. If there was reasonable doubt then he is found "not guilty".

The jury were not asked whether he was innocent or not and they gave no indication either way. The only think we know is that after hearing evidence and argument, the jury believed that there was reasonable doubt.

How ironic that you criticise others understandings but appear to have no clue of the difference between a magistrates court and a crown court.

It's a fair criticism that I hadn't paid enough attention to the case to note that it was in the Magistrates' court. It make no difference to the question of whether he was found "innocent" or not.

CyrilDavies

Good....This has all gone too far........

MeebaumAzanitch

It has to be accepted that John Terry was found innocent. However, if racism and reprobate behaviour is in a persons nature, this type of scenario will arise again. Remember, a Lampard doesn't change it's spots!