egafd.com

don't forget that mandaric and storrie were on trial last year as well for the same thing and the player mentioned was eyal berkovic . that trial lasted 2 months?! and ended in not guilty verdicts.imagine being on the jury and trying to stay awake for all that evidence!
that trial was all hushed up and 'arry jury not informed mandaric previously tried.
that bloke kelvin mckenzie ex sun editor described 'arry's performance in the box as mesmerising and some people wondered if he'd trained at RADA. you have to say his defence was brilliant by him and his barrister, he turned the whole case around by showing himself as the victim, the botched police raid which was later deemed illegal, his terrified wife etc and turning on that copper in court. but even so i thought the case was weak, the tax involved was ?30-?40k, approx a wks wages? why would he bother for that small sum.

Kyle Richmond wrote:

why would he bother for that small sum.

But he did or else why go to the trouble of going to Monaco and opening an account in your dog's name?

Simple answer - greed. Same as undone George Graham.

Just heard Harry will except the England job but ONLY if his wage his paid to his dog !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I saw Harry say this week: "the case should never have been brought if I'm being honest." Let's analyse that: Harry is saying that on his honour there was no case to answer. Therefore if he was trying to avoid tax and just happened to get off because the Jury thought he was an ok geezer, then he is basically saying "I have no honour". It seems likely he was trying to avoid tax and just got off on a technicality. As I said earlier why do wealthy Brits open accounts in Monaco if not to avoid tax. Harry has more or less told the world he is a man of no honour and should be seen that way - unless of course the very small chance that he was innocent is true.

there were 8 persons charged in all? mot one conviction but it seems most on here would have gone for guilty in the redknapp/mandaric trial. i didn't and had a couple of small bets with mates saying it will be not guilty and won a few ?.
so why do the juries go the other way 8 times over, i think essex lad may be right, don't think people care too much about giving a verdict in favour of the taxman/police for this sort of case.as he says, most public funds go to waste anyway . never sat on a jury but a few people i know have, they say its hard to worry about some cases like this if you give a non guilty as its only money. sit on a jury and try to decide whether the person who goes free could be a murderer or rapist and you may sit up and pay a bit more attention in court.