• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Hales and Stokes

Status
Not open for further replies.

mackembhoy said:
Why have the 2 blokes who stokes was supposed to be defending not given evidence?

Seems their testimony is pretty important?
Click to expand...
He didn’t have Hales there either.

It’s pretty obvious he’s lying to try cover himself. He can’t remember what homophobic comments were made to his friends who turned out to not actually be his friends, has selective memory, doesn’t call the three main witnesses etc. The truth is, he couldn’t get back into the club, was pissed off, had a go at the gay lads and the bouncer. That lad chucked a bottle and he decided to take his frustration out on them. It wasn’t self defence at all. He asked the police as soon as he was arrested if any CCTV because he knew he was in the shit. If his version was true, he would have had the gay lads and Hales as witnesses. I don’t know how anybody can try and defend him tbh.

Does anybody know why Hales wasn’t charged with anything? It was clear he kicked him when he was on the floor.
 
HarryChest said:
He didn’t have Hales there either.

It’s pretty obvious he’s lying to try cover himself. He can’t remember what homophobic comments were made to his friends who turned out to not actually be his friends, has selective memory, doesn’t call the three main witnesses etc.
Click to expand...

"Liar" and "selective memory" are some of the phrases being used on this thread to knock others involved the trial. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that it's almost certainly a tactic that their hero is using.
 
HarryChest said:
He didn’t have Hales there either.

It’s pretty obvious he’s lying to try cover himself. He can’t remember what homophobic comments were made to his friends who turned out to not actually be his friends, has selective memory, doesn’t call the three main witnesses etc. The truth is, he couldn’t get back into the club, was pissed off, had a go at the gay lads and the bouncer. That lad chucked a bottle and he decided to take his frustration out on them. It wasn’t self defence at all. He asked the police as soon as he was arrested if any CCTV because he knew he was in the shit. If his version was true, he would have had the gay lads and Hales as witnesses. I don’t know how anybody can try and defend him tbh.

Does anybody know why Hales wasn’t charged with anything? It was clear he kicked him when he was on the floor.
Click to expand...

I’m guessing that to charge him with anything but affray then charges would have to have been pressed by the victim. The police and cps probably felt that because Hales could easily have claimed self defence as he was responding instantaneously to being attacked and was trying to restrain Stokes for much of the incident. Not defending Hales actions but they clearly felt a conviction was unlikely
 
rentaghost said:
I’m guessing that to charge him with anything but affray then charges would have to have been pressed by the victim. The police and cps probably felt that because Hales could easily have claimed self defence as he was responding instantaneously to being attacked and was trying to restrain Stokes for much of the incident. Not defending Hales actions but they clearly felt a conviction was unlikely
Click to expand...
Kicking somebody when they are lying on the floor is not self defence. But if Stokes was telling the truth, why was Hales not there giving evidence?

HABA87 said:
"Liar" and "selective memory" are some of the phrases being used on this thread to knock others involved the trial. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that it's almost certainly a tactic that their hero is using.
Click to expand...
I wonder what they would be saying if it was a Newcastle player

The fact that the judge has already told the jury to find Hale not guilty, yet Stokes went after him rules out self defence to me. They were walking backwards with their hands up (that’s when self defence ends) yet he was still going after them
 
Last edited:
HarryChest said:
Kicking somebody when they are lying on the floor is not self defence. But if Stokes was telling the truth, why was Hales not there giving evidence?


I wonder what they would be saying if it was a Newcastle player

The fact that the judge has already told the jury to find Hale not guilty, yet Stokes went after him rules out self defence to me. They were walking backwards with their hands up (that’s when self defence ends) yet he was still going after them
Click to expand...

Because Stokes defense team chose not to use Hales evidence as they would have done

HarryChest said:
Kicking somebody when they are lying on the floor is not self defence. But if Stokes was telling the truth, why was Hales not there giving evidence?


I wonder what they would be saying if it was a Newcastle player

The fact that the judge has already told the jury to find Hale not guilty, yet Stokes went after him rules out self defence to me. They were walking backwards with their hands up (that’s when self defence ends) yet he was still going after them
Click to expand...

You may not think so but the police would have prosecuted Hales if there was any chance of a successful outcome. However badly Hales acted it was in direct retaliation to being attacked and everything he did afterwards was to try and diffuse the situation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top