woodgate and bowyer 2

Fergiesarmy

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
5,231
Location
pires is a cheat
what lovely lads they are! a brief look at their past!

Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer both have histories of violence. These were kept from the Hull Crown Court jury. Bowyer narrowly escaped jail after appearing in court for a violent drunken brawl in a McDonald's restaurant, and Woodgate admits butting a teenager in Middlesbrough when he was only 14. Woodgate was also arrested two years ago on suspicion of taking part in the beating and kicking of a student after a late-night confrontation in a pub in Middlesbrough. The attack bore chilling similarities to the assault on Sarfraz Najeib. Bowyer was caught on video throwing chairs at two Asian staff at the drive-in fast-food outlet in the Isle of Dogs, east London in 1996. He was 19 at the time and had just been transferred from Charlton Athletic to Leeds for £3.5 million. Thames Magistrates Court heard how Bowyer and two friends arrived at the McDonald's in Trafalgar Way at 6am and after an argument over the menu rushed in and started throwing chairs. Two members of staff were injured in the attack. The three attackers were "clearly drunk", says police. Bowyer admitted affray, was fined £4,500 and ordered to pay £175 to the two victims. Leeds United also fined Bowyer £4,000 and warned him that a repetition could result in his being sold. Peter McCormick, who was then the Leeds director in charge of discipline, told the court: "Leeds United many years ago was a fairly unpopular club. We took a conscious decision as board of directors that this would be a club in more recent times that would do everything it could to achieve standards of discipline both on and off the pitch."
 
Originally posted by Fergiesarmy:
<strong> We took a conscious decision as board of directors that this would be a club in more recent times that would do everything it could to achieve standards of discipline both on and off the pitch."</strong><hr></blockquote>


<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

You've clearly failed
 
Originally posted by Fergiesarmy:
<strong>what lovely lads they are! a brief look at their past!

Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer both have histories of violence. These were kept from the Hull Crown Court jury. ."</strong><hr></blockquote>

why? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
 
Originally posted by giggzy:
<strong>

why? :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

they arent allowed to give past convictions because it might influence them in thier verdicts which is fair enough.

but they are still both a bunch of cnuts.
 
Originally posted by Fergiesarmy:
<strong>

they arent allowed to give past convictions because it might influence them in thier verdicts which is fair enough.

but they are still both a bunch of cnuts.</strong><hr></blockquote>

they would've gone down if the jury had known about their previus convictions.


i hope they get a great reception at away grounds ;)
 
Originally posted by giggzy:
<strong>

they would've gone down if the jury had known about their previus convictions.


i hope they get a great reception at away grounds ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Quite right, had any jury known about the past conduct the two would have been convicted for their past, regardless of the present, which is why those bleeding-heart, soft on crime judges keep such essential information away from juries. I've had enough jurors tell me over the past 13 or so years "If only we had known. . . " The past history would put present conduct into perspective, dispite the judicial interpretation of the common law rule on judicial discretion (here in California,Evidence Code section 352) allowing judges to exclude evidence if its 'probative value' is outweighed by its 'prejudicial effect.'
 
Originally posted by FresnoBob:
<strong>

Quite right, had any jury known about the past conduct the two would have been convicted for their past, regardless of the present, which is why those bleeding-heart, soft on crime judges keep such essential information away from juries. I've had enough jurors tell me over the past 13 or so years "If only we had known. . . " The past history would put present conduct into perspective, dispite the judicial interpretation of the common law rule on judicial discretion (here in California,Evidence Code section 352) allowing judges to exclude evidence if its 'probative value' is outweighed by its 'prejudicial effect.'</strong><hr></blockquote>

crazy system. Woodgate had an ex teacher and a family friend as a character witness. She wasn't actually going to say anything bad, was she? Yet it wouldn't surprise me if the jury was told that Safraz was a known trouble causer.


Its amazing that these two have been involved in similar incidents in the past.. FergiesArmy has stated that Bowyer has been involved in a disturbance with Asians in 1996... the system needs sorting out.
 
Originally posted by rz99:
<strong>Can the family of the victim file a civil suit?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Good question - I would think they can.

Woodgate and Bowyer are facing legal fees of 1 million EACH. They might have got away with the GBH charges but financially they are screwed, more so if the victim files (and wins) a civil lawsuit.
 
Yes the law is really an ass if someone wrongly accused is still faced with a bill for £1million when he is cleared of all charges.

Are you really saying that some minor incident when Woody was 14 bears any relevence to this incident?
What was the outcome of him being arrested 2 yrs ago? Nothing! Again bears no relevence to this incident.
Bowyer paid his fine all those yrs ago for throwing chairs :rolleyes: Big deal!

Fergie uou are getting to sound like Sarfraz and his family....accept the verdicts, forget revenge and move on.
By the way I hope the away fans do come up with some new song cos Bowyer isn't going down <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> and he seemed to plat better for all the singing anyway B4E :D
 
Originally posted by marchingontogether:
<strong>Yes the law is really an ass if someone wrongly accused is still faced with a bill for £1million when he is cleared of all charges.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />
 
Originally posted by marchingontogether:
<strong>Yes the law is really an ass if someone wrongly accused is still faced with a bill for £1million when he is cleared of all charges.

B4E :D </strong><hr></blockquote>

It's something called the standard of proof, MOT. In the criminal case, I have to prove Joe Dirtbag is guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt (nebuleous, but high standard). After all the evidence is sifted through, rich boy civil attorney only has to prove Joe Dirtbag caused injury to his client by a preponderance of the evidence (50%+1 scintilla). Actually, filing the claim just about puts the plaintiff at the magic level anyway. See O.J. Simpson for further details.

Just happened to me two weeks ago. The attorneys who drive Jags and Porsches took a break from preparations on a personal injury lawsuit so that I could prosecute some guy for cutting up a girl's face with a beer bottle in a bar fight. That one came back "not guilty" due to the fact that some other honey smashed a wine glass in (victim's) face before the bottle was thrown, and the doctor only pulled clear glass out of the cuts on the face before sewing her up. Still might be worth $1 million on the civil side, but there's no way in hell to convince reasonable people (on a criminal jury)that the defendant in my case was the one who caused "great bodily injury."
 
Fascinating field to be in Bob - How long have you been in this work?
 
MOT:

Any lawyer has been in that line of work "too long." In my case, I've been with the local county DA's office for 13 years (as of Jan 9, 2002). Depressing work in that what we see all day is the shady side of the human race. On the other hand, every now and then something goes right and you can get a temporary belief that the job makes a difference.--Sport is a necessary antedote to the files on my desk.
 
At least you are in a better position than the rest of us to put scum in a place they deserve to be Bob.
 
Originally posted by marchingontogether:
<strong>At least you are in a better position than the rest of us to put scum in a place they deserve to be Bob.</strong><hr></blockquote>

just wish he had been in leeds then

:eek:
 
Originally posted by Fergiesarmy:
<strong>

just wish he had been in leeds then

:eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Thats fine by me.....the trial was in Hull ;)