How is this police officer a "witness"?

I dont get it.

comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 1 minute ago

Does having a faceless member of the public not open a huge can of worms.

What about the next time a player lashes out at someone, If i phone the police and report an assault will they not have to follow it up and take that player to court?

We could see a lot of players in the dock.

What about swearing at the camera ala Rooney, foul and abusive language.

where will it end

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely, with the media available to the general public these days I am suprised this has not happened more often, it has been attempted, and maybe that is why this case is being heard, to set a precedent.

Mr C. Pollice involved in investigations are often called to give evidence, that makes them a witness.

jFDI

Bluespensioner made a good point yesterday

posted 18 hours, 53 minutes ago

if the lady/gentleman who broght this to the police attention is not being questioned then who is pressing charges?!
------------------------------------------------------------------
A member of the public can make a complaint to the Police about what they perceive to be a criminal offence
The Police examine the complaint and present the evidence to the CPS
The CPS then decides if the evidence indicates that a crime has been committed and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute

But in all honesty the CPS were in a bind .... they had to proceed with this case because the public reaction to them not proceeding would have been great and they rely on public confidence

Basically they have handed it over to the court to offload a hot potato

Mr Chelsea ✪ (U3579)

Plagiarism Mr C????

Robbing

What have I plagiarised?

I saw that post yesterday from someone else didn't I? Sorry if incorrect.

Yeahh I credited bluespensioner with the post

comment by Robbing_Hoody (U6374)
posted 59 seconds ago

I saw that post yesterday from someone else didn't I? Sorry if incorrect.

-----------------------------

To be fair, I posted something similar earlier and have done in the past. It is worth repeating and something many haven't considered in their rush to convict Terry.

JFDI, you're our in house legal expert

police officer is repeating statment Terry gave to police.
Its consistent with what he told FA.

I think they have considered it but the point stands that the complaint was made and there was blatant evidence. I don't think there is anything more in it than that and a lot of footballer get charged with all sorts of things just like the general public.

comment by Mr Chelsea ✪ (U3579)
posted 4 minutes ago

JFDI, you're our in house legal expert
-----------------------------------------------------
Lol, no way but my mum has worked in law for 30 years, I have mates in the police and also, and probably most damming, I have had personal experience of court on more than one occasion.

JFDI glad to see you're stil with us

well there you go, complaint was made by an off-duty police officer.

The police officer may simply be there to read out Terry's interview. There is a police officer in charge of every case. A witness does not always mean a witness to the incident.

The member of the public, who reported it may not be needed if Terry admits saying the words, but is arguing the context.

Apparently, ferdinand's PR agent was sent to deal with the police.

Does that look suspicious to anyone else? Yesterday, he was making out he was very angry when he heard about it, why wouldn't he have wanted to speak them himself?

Witnesses are called. It's not just random. If the prosecution wants the member of the crowd who made the complaint to be in the stand then they will be.

^suspicious is wrong word, odd maybe.

The member of the public, who reported it may not be needed if Terry admits saying the words, but is arguing the context.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Makes sense, but in this case, the witness is the only person that heard the words, according to everything we have been told to date. The video evidence is obscured during the words used thus throwing dount into the context as elements of the exchange are missing therefore I would have thought the witness would have been useful to the prosecution.

Bloody Hell Mr C
Sacked from my post as legal expert .... on what grounds ?

BTW Also remember that in criminal proceedings the prosecution must prove their case "beyond reasonable doubt"
That is that there is no other "reasonable explanation" other than a crime has been committed
JT's defence is that their is another "reasonable explanation" - i.e. that he was replying to an accusation that Anton Ferdiand made
The crux of the case IMO

JFDI, the witness was in a crowd of nearly 20,000 people, a good distance from the incident.
No way could his evidence be deemed reliable.

Whilst I think that Terry will be found not guilty, it can't help him that the witness that reported the event was actually a copper. I bet he is a Spurs fan too!

caroline davies ‏@ccdavies
Ferdinand"s PR Justin Rigby warned police if ‪#Terry‬ was not charged he and Anton "would raise their concerns with the press".

Interesting stuff.

blueboy, there may be nothing to ask this witness if Terry admits using the words, which is why he/she was not called. There may be no fundamental dispute between Terry and the witness over what was said.