Manchester Airport police assault trial | Man found guilty of assaulting two female police officers | Both defendants cleared of assaulting third PC

  • Thread starter Thread starter ob
  • Start date Start date
Blue Maverick said:
I can’t believe they’ve not been don’t, this is the problem with trial by jury, the general public are fucking idiots.
Click to expand...
When I did jury service I got on a witness intimidation case. We deliberated for about an hour and I thought the guy had done it and so did others. I only thought that though because he looked and sounded like a thug and twat. I still have no doubt today that he probably did do it.

The prosecution case was based upon a witness statement about intimidating text messages and also physical intimidation. The witness took the stand though and she was clearly either pissed or on drugs, she couldn't even remember the witness statement. I have no idea why they didn't show us the text messages and maybe they didn't exist? Who knows. Nobody else was there for the physical intimidation and there was no evidence given of injury.

When we deliberated about 3 or 4 of us thought he had probably done it, mainly because you could just imagine it, the guy was already up for GBH elsewhere anyway and the two were as bad as each other. We talked about it and eventually came down to say not guilty because we couldn't be sure. The prosecution case was basically a shambles but who knows the truth.

You have to remember that the defence barristers aren't there to prove innocence, they're there to sway the jury towards not guilty. They plant seeds of doubt and make you think of things that don't quite add up and then you just have to say not guilty because of the doubt. You have to be 100% sure, that's all they tell you, and that includes dismissing the doubt that the defence has put into your head.

In this case we know that those two blokes smashed up the Police because we've seen it but we don't know why nor what has been put to the jury and what has been said in defence. The defence can talk absolute bollocks and if that seeds enough doubt in at least 1 or 2 people then that's their job done. It's totally down to the jury and getting a majority to believe something is tough even if it seems completely obvious.
 
Last edited:
lefty goldblatt said:
Maybe there is something in David "Mastermind" Lammy's idea to scrap trial by jury, if this "result " is anything to go by
Click to expand...
labour are not planning to end trial by Jury-but trying to find some way of clearing the back log caused by Tory cuts.

also why does everything these days have to be a conspiracy?

'beyond all reasonable doubt' is a bed rock of our justice system-irrespective of what views individuals may hold it is for the court to decide-without that we have mob rule.
 
We've got Guardiola said:
When I did jury service I got on a witness intimidation case. We deliberated for about an hour and I thought the guy had done it and so did others. I only thought that though because he looked and sounded like a thug and twat. I still have no doubt today that he probably did do it.

The prosecution case was based upon a witness statement about intimidating text messages and also physical intimidation. The witness took the stand though and she was clearly either pissed or on drugs, she couldn't even remember the witness statement. I have no idea why they didn't show us the text messages and maybe they didn't exist? Who knows. Nobody else was there for the physical intimidation and there was no evidence given of injury.

When we deliberated about 3 or 4 of us thought he had probably done it, mainly because you could just imagine it, the guy was already up for GBH elsewhere anyway and the two were as bad as each other. We talked about it and eventually came down to say not guilty because we couldn't be sure. The prosecution case was basically a shambles but who knows the truth.

You have to remember that the defence barristers aren't there to prove innocence, they're there to sway the jury towards not guilty. They plant seeds of doubt and make you think of things that don't quite add up and then you just have to say not guilty because of the doubt. You have to be 100% sure, that's all they tell you, and that includes dismissing the doubt that the defence has put into your head.

In this case we know that those two blokes smashed up the Police because we've seen it but we don't know why nor what has been put to the jury and what has been said in defence. The defence can talk absolute bollocks and if that seeds enough doubt in at least 1 or 2 people then that's their job done. It's totally down to the jury and getting a majority to believe something is tough even if it seems completely obvious.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter what bollocks the defence said, they claimed self defence and you can quite clearly see it’s not, he clocks the coppers grabbing his brother and goes for him, then his brother starts windmilling and then jumps on the make copper. The younger one has rightly been done and should be behind bars for a long time, the other one needs jailing as well.
 
levets said:
Yes I know Phil, but not sure if he’s been sentenced yet? I can’t find it anywhere. I know he’s on remand, so I guess not yet.
Click to expand...
No, he wasn't sentenced last year when he was convicted of the three assaults ( Punter in coffee shop and 2 X Female officers) He was remanded until this retrial of the 4th assault was decided and then to be sentenced on all 3 or 4, whichever it was.

Now presumably they'll wait until it's been decided if they're going a third time. Or as seems more likely, it's announced they're leaving the 4th charge on file ( If that's the correct term ) and he'll be sentenced shortly after that on the three other charges presumaably.
 
Stephen230 said:
No, he wasn't sentenced last year when he was convicted of the three assaults ( Punter in coffee shop and 2 X Female officers) He was remanded until this retrial of the 4th assault was decided and then to be sentenced on all 3 or 4, whichever it was.

Now presumably they'll wait until it's been decided if they're going a third time. Or as seems more likely, it's announced they're leaving the 4th charge on file ( If that's the correct term ) and he'll be sentenced shortly after that on the three other charges presumaably.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that
 
Stephen230 said:
No, he wasn't sentenced last year when he was convicted of the three assaults ( Punter in coffee shop and 2 X Female officers) He was remanded until this retrial of the 4th assault was decided and then to be sentenced on all 3 or 4, whichever it was.

Now presumably they'll wait until it's been decided if they're going a third time. Or as seems more likely, it's announced they're leaving the 4th charge on file ( If that's the correct term ) and he'll be sentenced shortly after that on the three other charges presumaably.
Click to expand...
So by the time it comes to sentencing, he’ll walk having already served his time!
 
Blue Maverick said:
Doesn’t matter what bollocks the defence said, they claimed self defence and you can quite clearly see it’s not, he clocks the coppers grabbing his brother and goes for him, then his brother starts windmilling and then jumps on the make copper. The younger one has rightly been done and should be behind bars for a long time, the other one needs jailing as well.
Click to expand...
It does matter and the jury haven't even disagreed with you! The geezer wasn't exonerated or found not guilty, the jury just couldn't come to a decision to find him guilty.

If this was a clean cut case then why did they deliberate for 20hrs and then decide that they couldn't decide? There are obviously facts or points which are doubtful or unproven. The jury evidently knew that these two smashed up the Police because it's obvious and that's probably why they didn't return a not guilty verdict.

The whole burden of convincing the jury is placed on the prosecution. So the fault isn't with the jury, it's with the prosecution who obviously didn't have a watertight case. They should have anticipated the self-defence argument but quite clearly they weren't able to argue convincingly and what are the jury supposed to do? Just ignore it?

I'm not defending what they did, I'm just defending our justice system, we don't and shouldn't have kangaroo courts in the UK.
 
We've got Guardiola said:
It does matter and the jury haven't even disagreed with you! The geezer wasn't exonerated or found not guilty, the jury just couldn't come to a decision to find him guilty.

If this was a clean cut case then why did they deliberate for 20hrs and then decide that they couldn't decide? There are obviously facts or points which are doubtful or unproven. The jury evidently knew that these two smashed up the Police because it's obvious and that's probably why they didn't return a not guilty verdict.

The whole burden of convincing the jury is placed on the prosecution. So the fault isn't with the jury, it's with the prosecution who obviously didn't have a watertight case. They should have anticipated the self-defence argument but quite clearly they weren't able to argue convincingly and what are the jury supposed to do? Just ignore it?

I'm not defending what they did, I'm just defending our justice system, we don't and shouldn't have kangaroo courts in the UK.
Click to expand...
Seems like ‘dodgy’ jurors to me………sympathy voting?
 
We've got Guardiola said:
When I did jury service I got on a witness intimidation case. We deliberated for about an hour and I thought the guy had done it and so did others. I only thought that though because he looked and sounded like a thug and twat. I still have no doubt today that he probably did do it.

The prosecution case was based upon a witness statement about intimidating text messages and also physical intimidation. The witness took the stand though and she was clearly either pissed or on drugs, she couldn't even remember the witness statement. I have no idea why they didn't show us the text messages and maybe they didn't exist? Who knows. Nobody else was there for the physical intimidation and there was no evidence given of injury.

When we deliberated about 3 or 4 of us thought he had probably done it, mainly because you could just imagine it, the guy was already up for GBH elsewhere anyway and the two were as bad as each other. We talked about it and eventually came down to say not guilty because we couldn't be sure. The prosecution case was basically a shambles but who knows the truth.

You have to remember that the defence barristers aren't there to prove innocence, they're there to sway the jury towards not guilty. They plant seeds of doubt and make you think of things that don't quite add up and then you just have to say not guilty because of the doubt. You have to be 100% sure, that's all they tell you, and that includes dismissing the doubt that the defence has put into your head.

In this case we know that those two blokes smashed up the Police because we've seen it but we don't know why nor what has been put to the jury and what has been said in defence. The defence can talk absolute bollocks and if that seeds enough doubt in at least 1 or 2 people then that's their job done. It's totally down to the jury and getting a majority to believe something is tough even if it seems completely obvious.
Click to expand...
Very much mirrors my own experience of jury service, added to which, is the archaic, haphazard way in which the courts operate. Ours was an alleged sexual assault which happened between employees at a Pizza takeaway. The prosecution evidence was, in my opinion, flimsy at best and it really appeared to be something that should have been dealt with by the company under their disciplinary procedures. It wasn’t particularly difficult for the defence barrister to sow the seeds of doubt. We went round the houses for hours, one bloke insisted he was dyslexic and couldn’t understand what was going on so he was discharged and presumably got to finish his decking before having to return to work. In the end we couldn’t agree on a verdict and the whole process was a time wasting non event.
 
We've got Guardiola said:
When I did jury service I got on a witness intimidation case. We deliberated for about an hour and I thought the guy had done it and so did others. I only thought that though because he looked and sounded like a thug and twat. I still have no doubt today that he probably did do it.

The prosecution case was based upon a witness statement about intimidating text messages and also physical intimidation. The witness took the stand though and she was clearly either pissed or on drugs, she couldn't even remember the witness statement. I have no idea why they didn't show us the text messages and maybe they didn't exist? Who knows. Nobody else was there for the physical intimidation and there was no evidence given of injury.

When we deliberated about 3 or 4 of us thought he had probably done it, mainly because you could just imagine it, the guy was already up for GBH elsewhere anyway and the two were as bad as each other. We talked about it and eventually came down to say not guilty because we couldn't be sure. The prosecution case was basically a shambles but who knows the truth.

You have to remember that the defence barristers aren't there to prove innocence, they're there to sway the jury towards not guilty. They plant seeds of doubt and make you think of things that don't quite add up and then you just have to say not guilty because of the doubt. You have to be 100% sure, that's all they tell you, and that includes dismissing the doubt that the defence has put into your head.

In this case we know that those two blokes smashed up the Police because we've seen it but we don't know why nor what has been put to the jury and what has been said in defence. The defence can talk absolute bollocks and if that seeds enough doubt in at least 1 or 2 people then that's their job done. It's totally down to the jury and getting a majority to believe something is tough even if it seems completely obvious.
Click to expand...
Never been on a jury but like you said the prosecution lawyers Bring there evidence and it’s up to the Defence lawyers to Challenge the evidence put before them we have not seen that evidence
Maybe the police cams shown something different than what was widely seen on Social media.

And in this case the accused didn’t look like thugs but they Could handle themselves well .let’s not forget there brother is a serving police officer so is there Uncle so it doesn’t seem like they come from a Family of Thugs

And let’s not forget how long it Took to change them and for them to. Be took to courts.Andy Burnham and the police plus the CPS said it’ wasn’t as Clear cut as it Seems. Maybe thats why it took the CPS to take it to Court because they didn’t have Clear enough evidence for a Conviction,

And that seems the case after 2 Trails
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top