Following on from flippers gist let me ask the posters baying for the acquitted man's blood on here whether they want Keith Senior charged for what appears to be a carbon copy of the incident in the match against Saints at Headingley in 2009 when he floored Wilkin with one punch?

I do not make judgments on these things from quotes given by journalists working for the sun. They are no more or less reliable than many posters on here and that is no commendation.

The Judge and the jurors heard all the evidence, saw the faces of the witnesses, listened to the cross examination, were guided on the law by the judge and reached their decision. Why does any ill informed person on here with a poor grasp of the facts based upon reporters versions of events really think they're in a better position to judge than those jurors?

What if he crossed the road to reason with the chap (who on the basis of the evidence appears to have pursued the accused aggressively asking for a fight). Having gone across the road to do so it became apparent that he was about to be attacked and punched the gentleman in an act of self defence?

Remember that great video from the other year with the cage fighting cross dressers punching the young bother causing scrotes on the street? We all cheered that. It looked like natural justice. If the young scrote had, however, been killed by or as a result of that punch what would your view be? I remember the footage and the cross dressing cage fighter (love typing that definition) could have walked away from the aggressive little scrote but he turned back and walked towards him. It's just dumb luck that his punch didn't result in a death and the one in the present case did.

I fail to see why everyone is getting their knickers in a twist. Is it a tragic and sad tale, yes? Has justice been served, yes? It's a cautionary tale but I don't see the need to be baying for any more blood.

hmm.. some good points. re: the Keith Senior incident (im trying to justify this in my own mind) on a soft pitch in front of thousands of ppl including security staff and TV cameras and with a punch barely hard enough to put a similar size man down (i believe Wilkin took a bit of a dive) was never ever going to cause serious injury.

Also in terms of information those quotes where by the prosecuter and not the sun (various other sources had these quotes - the sun was just the first one up on google).

On the baying for blood, I know I would be one calling for a sentence - but the bigger picture is that fights like this one occur ever Friday/ Saturday in nearly every town and city centre - the consequences are frightening and almost never thought about at the time. Something needs to be done to stop these incidents occurring (maybe just better education).

Finally has just justice been served? A man has died at the hands of another man (accident or no) - the man whos hands undeniably caused this death has received no punishment for it.

...because its recognised that there are circumstances where such a thing can happen without blame, self defence being one of those circumstances.



If you don't go looking for trouble then you don't often find it.

Slight issue CPS decide on the evidence to be presented witness etc not the police

I'd have thought that the one that floored BJ Mather was a more appropriate comparison. That was a one punch KO of the highest order, an a bloke much bigger than KS. Actually come to think of it, KS has a bit of a history of ting people...

.... and if you dont go round bashing every div who runs his mouth off you wont be in the dock for manslaughter. Sounds like he had a very good barrister in his corner, and it could have gone either way. Did he genuinely think he was going to be attacked and acted in self defence, or did he go to give him a good smack to prove he's a big man.... i guess only he will really know.

Indeed (though I am not sure how many of this target audience will recall it given how long back it occured and given Keith wasn't a Leeds player at the time.

Any punch to the head can lead to very disastrous circumstances.

All I can do is echo Mclaren Field's comments that if you don't go looking for a fight, generally speaking, you don't find one. That is the sad lesson to be learned from this. Too late for the chap who lost his life and a shame he didn't learn that lesson sooner, sadly.

However, as BurleyBurleyBurley says it's a lesson that will be lost on many individuals in Leeds city Centre this very weekend.

He convinced a jury it was the former. That is all that matters and so it should be. They looked into his eyes. They heard the evidence. They saw him cross examined by the prosecution Barrister. They weighed up all the evidence.

Far better to judge a man on that basis than what is written in a tabloid or discussed over a tap room bar, IMO.

True,... who'd wanted to be a jurer eh?

Oh another matter, the deceased's family could take up civil proceeding, which could have entirely different evidence and outcome.

Never done it and I don't think I can. Nor would I want to.

I am with G1 and McF here, the 12 people of the jury were in the court room for the duration of the trial and they found him not guilty of Manslaughter, the offence that the CPS decided to pursue against him in court. The Jury came back in under two hours which at least sounds to me like they did some deliberation but that they probably all went into the jury the room thinking the same thing... not guilty!

I'm with Gareth here - who I understand once had a similar altercation during a 7's tournament - the jury have heard all the evidence and gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt - whilst we may not always agreed with the jury I would not want to replace the current system.

Indeed McField.

Gareth opined that Justice has been done, and perhaps he's right. Certainly there was the theatre of the Trial, and the anxious wait before a Verdict is read out, but Justice? The guy took his chance in Court, as is his right, and got the result he must have prayed for. That was his good fortune in this Courthouse, but perhaps there would have been a different, and to the layman at least, an understandable conclusion with a different Judge and Jury.

What I think is troubling most people in this particular case, is the apparent definition of "self defence" not the act itself, or any possible consequences arising from it. I suspect that the Prosecuting Barrister is as perplexed as us over this Jury's decision.

What I think is causing some people a problem is the notion that you don't go looking for your self defence, rather that "self defence" should be something that you do while you are backing away from your assailant and indeed that your assailant should be already on the offensive...

In which case I'd refer you to G1's scenario at the top of the previous page and ask you to consider that the accused had crossed the road for an entirely peaceable reason.




I suspect that alcohol had a great deal to do with this and many other similar altercations on every weekend in every city and I also suspect that the purveyors of the alcohol sit on their hands and whistle at the ceiling whenever cases like this are read out.