John Terry Not Guilty

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?

what he did to Bridge and the way he disregarded his wife and kids to get a bit of arse makes him out to be a dog, so no, from what i can tell of him i dont particularly like him.

but im talking about this incident. found not guilty. leave it.

I think we can debate the meaning of the term 'not guilty' but it basically means what it says. The prosecution in their summing up accused Terry of making up a plausible explanation. Well as plausible means believable, and the prosecution used that terminology you have to wonder how these legal people get their money! It worries me that some of the people in high positions in this country may have degrees and seem clever but on certain levels are pretty stupid!

I hate racism but have adopted that - it can't be proven line from the beginning of this sorry affair. I was worried that may mean people may assume I have sympathy for racists when I don't. But we can't have witch hunts and if we are going to accuse somebody of something we need to be very careful. I don't think th eright level of care and thought went into this.

Even now people are arguing that Terry said those words so must be a racist. But Terry has never denied saying them but explained why and in what context. To say what Terry said you have to either be a racist or abhor racism. Terry suggested it was the latter and if you can't get into his mind you can only take his word for it, no matter whether you like teh man or not.

Will both players have some sort of charge against them for foul and abusive language as the FA want them to all show respect..

I accept there would hardly be any players left to play if they banned everyone who used such language though!

are you CID?...cos you can twist a comment.

I was talking about him being picked apart IN THIS INCIDENT!...look at the end of Muttleys post above. JT has been found not guilty but people are still accusing him, even though a judge has heard all evidence provided.

Anyone I don't like must be guilty of whatever it is they are accused of!

You've got to laugh.

Agree!

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.

But if you are innocent until proven guilty, and are subsequently found not guilty then it stands to reason that you are innocent.

Any other interpretation means I could accuse you of any crime I fancy and you'd have no way of demonstrating your innocence.

I don't like Terry, but I think some people wanted him to be guilty of this so badly so they had another stick to beat him with that they are willing to ignore (or as in the above quote) mis-represent the nature of the English legal system so they can do so despite the findings of a court of law.

Why is the Steven Lawrance case brought up in this discussion, feck me, and also a question ? How many of you would have had sex with Bridges wife if she put it on a plate? Terry is many things but he ain't no racist.

He is guilty ----- of being an obnoxious bastard

But if you are innocent until proven guilty, and are subsequently found not guilty then it stands to reason that you are innocent.

Any other interpretation means I could accuse you of any crime I fancy and you'd have no way of demonstrating your innocence.

I don't like Terry, but I think some people wanted him to be guilty of this so badly so they had another stick to beat him with that they are willing to ignore (or as in the above quote) mis-represent the nature of the English legal system so they can do so despite the findings of a court of law.

Innocent until proven guilty simply means that it is for the state (ie the prosecution) to prove that you are guilty - it is not for the accused to prove he is innocent. The judge sums it up in his case

"It is therefore possible that what he [Terry] said was not intended as an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him. In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty."

There is no finding of innocence here.

Words used in law do not always mean what they do in real life.

You can accuse me of any crime you like. I can sue you for libel or slander

I don't like Terry either. But I don't think he should have been prosecuted.

Hear hear...I'm left wondering why he was?

I think it's insane that he could be found not guilty after the evidence. But what I found even more rediculous about the whole thing is that it went to court at all. We already no he's a absolute bell what a waste of taxpayers time and money. And 2 and a half g's??? Bollocks

Racism and other serious stuff aside, the personal lives of footballers really doesn't bother me.
Terry can shag who he likes, the fact he's been a quality footballer and has given it all for England makes him popular with me.

I think the reason the Stephen Lawrence case was mentioned is because in that case two men that were originally found not guilty were later found guilty. It was used to illustrate the point that 'not guilty' doesn't necessarily mean 'innocent', it means that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt.

I agree with the view that this should never have been brought to court. This sort of case would, in a magistrates' court, normally be a two hour trial - not three days with QCs in front of the Senior District Judge. And the evidence looks pretty flimsy, although we are all going on what has been reported, which may not be accurate. The FA should have taken a case against him as they have a lower burden of proof and can impose a higher penalty.

John Terry is a nasty piece of work, can't stand the guy never have, smug git. However, he was found not-guilty so it should be the end of it until next misdemeneor.