sadoldgit

Where have I apologised for domestic abuse. Even by your standards that is a very weird post. Go off and find the evidence.

Why is it odd to be curious about why a verdict has been reached in a court case? Weren’t you curious to know why OJ Simpson was acquitted? I just think the pictures do the injuries reflect the result of being punched in the face 20 times. Do you?

The CPS felt they had definitive proof as evidenced by the guilty verdict in the first trial.

It is not defending him. It is looking for definitive proof that something has happened the way someone claims it has. A statement and a picture is not conclusive proof, but I’m sure you know that, you are just looking for an argument, as usual.

Coming from you I take that as a compliment.

Harsh. Interesting that you say I was defending him. I guess you read what you want to read. I would prefer to see more evidence concerning her injuries. Doesn’t mean I am defending him at all. Having been in that situation myself I understand that in DV cases there is often an assumption that the man is guilty straight away. Perhaps you should go back and read what I have actually said.

On Sir Geoffrey rather than in

I have been trying to find the medical report with no joy and I think I have spent too much of my day in Sir Geoffrey. I did find an interview with the judge in the case though and his behaviour throughout the trial clearly did not help his case. The word arrogant was used s lot and apparently he was very rude to the prosecutor. Gotta love a dyed in the wool Yorkshireman.

I’m not sure if you can use that as evidence in court Benjii!

We have sent people to the gallows when their case had been proven, only to find out years later that they are innocent. I am glad that you are so sure. I would prefer that you could provide some actual hard evidence to back up your position. If there is some great. There are plenty of stupid people who have been proved right. If you ever found yourself in Boycotts position I hope that the people trying you make sure that they do so on hard evidence.

I know that this was a magistrates court but just suppose it was a Crown Court case and you were sitting on the jury. You have heard both sides of the story. They clearly contradict each other. Without concrete evidence that her injuries were caused by Boycott and not a fall, would you still find him guilty? Oh, and we will get along better if you stop the childish name calling. This is supposed to be a grown up discussion

I’ll do you a deal Egg. He show me concrete evidence that her injuries were caused by a fist and could not possibly have been caused by a fall and I will join the call to have his knighthood revoked. Fair enough?

The accuser in the Evans case was the CPS based on the fact that the victim was intoxicated and had no recollection of where she was, how she got there are what happened to her. But given that you were present on the Evans thread you know that don’t you.

I am not digging and I am glad you are 100% sure that he did.

Just one blow to the head can be fatal. 3 to 5 punches can leave a face in a right mess. There is a big difference between 3 to 5 and 20 or so. Even in a traumatic moment you would know the difference between a few punches and multiple punches and she made a big point about it being 20 or so. I spent 8 years working for the CPS and most mornings there would be a pile of files on my desk with pictures of people with facial injuries after fights. They are not pretty and a ferocious beating would more than likely involve fractured bones. A few months ago my wife passed out and fell into a flagstone floor. Her face ended up looking like that of Ms Moore’s and she also had a mosaic fracture of the right cheek bone and eye socket. It is possible that her injuries were caused by a fall. It is possible they were caused by a punch. The point is that that picture alone is not hard evidence against DV taking place, no matter how much Shurlock would like to pin a DV apologist tag on me.

OJ Simpson was found innocent by a court of law. Do you think he was innocent. All I am saying is, from what I have read, the situation is not clear cut. You clearly think otherwise. Nice to see you dragging Read and Pellegrino into it. Given that we had back to back promotion and 4 top ten finishes under Reed it was hardly all bad was it? As for Pellegrino, I am sure he did the best that he could but clearly it wasn’t good enough. Not sure what either have to do with Boycott and DV, I guess you are just being a WUM as usual.

You apparently are super smart Shurlock, perhaps you can answer these questions for me? Did a doctor examine Ms Moore immediately after the event? I ask because the impression I get is that a doctor reported on the pictures when in court rather than providing a report immediately after the occurrence. It doesn’t sound like she was hospitalised as Boycott testified that they spent the next 2 nights together (and had sex). It would appear no broken bones then? Not that bruising isn’t bad enough but hardly consistent with being pinned down and repeatedly punched 20 or so times. I have tried to find evidence of a post attack examination but no joy so far. Given that you are trying to show that I am a DV apologists perhaps you can find something that provides solid proof that she received the injuries from a fist rather than a fall?

Who is apologising for domestic violence? My wife provided the police of pictures of bruising to her face that certainly weren’t caused by me. It is entirely possible to fall over and not use your arms to break your fall. No broken nose despite repeated beatings? Look at pictures of people who have been punched in the face repeatedly. If he beat her he deserves all the criticism he gets. If he beat her. That is not apologising for domestic violence.

I have already said that his response to this has done him no favours. Boycott is not an easy man to like and I am certainly not a fan. Margaret Moore may well be telling the truth and as I said earlier, I really dont have a view one way or the other, but there are a number of things in this case worth considering. As you say, she maintains that she was hit in the face with his fist some 20 times. I guess you have seen the pictures? If you are repeatedly punched in the face it would end up a bloody, pulped mess and there is every likelihood that your nose would be badly broken. She had brusing but apparently that was it. He had a bruise on his arm where he says he also fell, apparently no damage to his fist or fingers. Punch someone once and you can break bones in your hand. Do it 20 times and see what happens. There is evidence that she had money problems and her business actually went into administration. There is also evidence that she requested the sums of £150,000 and £1m from Boycott to keep quiet. As he said, he was being blackmailed. Her friend said that Moore told he that she fell and hit her head on the floor. A relative of hers said that she always wore high heels and had fallen before. She also said she didnt believe Moore's version of events. Boycott has a zero record of violence towards women. In a British court a judge accused Moore of a "deliberate lack of truthfulness" and a consultant forensic psychiatrist quoted in court papers relating to Boycott's case concluded that she was "probably a pathological liar" and had "a personality disorder with hysterical and psychopathic features." Having been married to someone with those personality traits I know what it is like first hand to live in what often seems like a parallel universe. There was a long and interesting report in The Mail the other day describing how Moore wanted more out of the relationship and was upset that Boycott refused to discuss marriage with her. It suggested that this could be a case of o woman scorned getting her own back. Could be nonsense but when you look at the situation as a whole I really dont think it is that clear cut. As for hypocrisy regarding Evans, the law says it is rape to have sex with a person who is too intoxicated to consent. The Crown offered compelling evidence that the woman was too drunk to consent (so much so that he was originally found guilty of rape). His case was overturned on evidence provided by two men who came forward when money was made available by Evan's fiancée's family. The Crown believes that the family briefed the men with the evidence that apparently turned the case. You can believe what you want but my stance has not been hypocritical. I still believe, as does the CPS, that Evans was guilty of rape as the law stands. As for Boycott, as said, I really dont know, but having been the victim of a stich up by my ex wife and ex mother in law, I do have sympathy for him if his version of events is true. As an aside, I was arrested 3 times by the East Sussex police and never convicted of wrongful behaviour. One policeman told me that in domestics if there are children involved, they always remove the man from the scene (no matter what has happened and who the aggressor is). I spent three separate nights in the nick for not doing anything. My wife has punched me in the face, pulled my hair and ripped my shirt. My mother-in-law assaulted me with a bunch of keys, leaving my arm scratched and bleeding. She then laid down and pretended that I had assaulted her. I did not touch her. As I was being led away I heard my ex wife tell a PC that I took drugs. I have never taken drugs (other than those prescribed by my doctor) in my life. It was all orchestrated to get me out of the family home. Yes, most domestic violence is carried out by men on women and for that reason it is very easy to get tarred with the same brush, but every case must be taken on its own merits. There are plenty of men who fall victim of DV who are too embarrassed to say anything and also plenty of men who get stitched up by women but there is a natural assumption that the man is always guilty. Boycott may be guilty and was found guilty, but whilst his attitude in court probably did him no favours, being an arse is not a criminal offence. Dig out the article in The Mail the other day, it is worth a read.

he is guilty or not. If this makes me a “nob” then so be it.

Where have I said the conviction was unsafe? Yes he was found guilty. He has always maintained his innocence. A friend of the women has said she told her she fell and hit her face on the floor. We know that no justice system is perfect and that innocent people are found guilty and guilty people are found innocent. We are all entitled our own views on the outcome of a trial. I have no view either way on whether

Duckie grades women by how many pints he would need to drink before he would deign to have sex with them. Or in his case I suspect, how many pints of vodka and coke that women would need to drink before having sex with him.

The court found him guilty. He maintains he is not guilty. As we discovered with the Ched Evans case, guilt is not always set in stone.

The evidence would appear to be her word against his. There were no witnesses.

Fair comment, although he still maintains his innocence and it would appear that it is one word against the other. Having been falsely accused of assaulting my ex wife I do have some sympathy for him if he is innocent. There is a natural tendency to believe the women in cases of domestic violence and I found straight away there was an assumption that I was the guilty party even though I was the one who was assaulted.