Verstappen on trial for assault

[Jay]

From http://www.f1-live.com:

Dutch Formula One driver Jos Verstappen was accused Monday of grievous bodily harm relating to an incident two years ago, reported Belgian news agency Belga. The Arrows-Supertec driver and his father were involved in a serious fight on May 19, 1998, at a karting championship in Lanaken, northern Belgium.

According to the witness, the driver punched a 45-year-old man, fracturing his skull and leaving him hospitalised for several months.
Trouble flared when Verstappen wanted to use the karting circuit alone with five other drivers. But some youngsters joined in with Verstappen reportedly losing his cool after one had overtaken him.

Unable to appear in court in Tongres as he was preparing for the Japanese Grand Prix it was left to Verstappen's lawyer to contend that the youngsters were to blame for the scrap. His lawyer demanded an acquittal claiming that "there existed no proof that it was Verstappen who had indeed struck the victim".

The victim was not in court after reaching a financial agreement with the Grand Prix ace and the prosecution is calling for Verstappen to be handed "a severe punishment". He must now wait to learn his fate with a ruling due on October 30.

I didn't know that Jos was this way away from the track. I also have to wonder how Verstappen gets away with not being at the trial. In most countries, if the acused does not show up for the trial, he has no choice but to plead guilty and face the music. Apparently these charges carry a maximum of 5 years in prison. If he is found guilty (as it sounds like he is), I wonder if this might be the end of his F1 career.

[Sparky]

Jay, be careful how you phrase your words. Jos Verstappen is a very close friend of our own Gerard, and it might be prudent to wait and see how he replies to this. I hope Gerard can speak to him about this, and let us know what really happened. This is news of a trial, not a sentence, and as news, it's probably third hand and sensationalist.

Even the motorsport press has been known to 'embroider' the truth a little in order to get more copy.

If it is true, and I sincerely hope it isn't, then it is truly unfortunate. I only know Jos the gentleman, the poor fellow who teamed with Michael Schumacher at Benetton in the awful '94 season. The guy who so nearly came to tragedy at Hockenhiem the same year after he was sprayed with fuel and ignited while strapped into the car.

For a proffesional racing driver to endure such difficulties, and to (be accused of having a) fight at a Karting track...

We'll have to wait and see.

[TimD]

I agree. Best to wait awhile on the outcome of this.

Without wishing to suggest any similarity whatsoever between the two cases - I am worried by a precedent from the recent past. A time of enforced absence from the circuit, with the attendant poor publicity, has done nothing for the career of Bertrand Gachot.

But as to Jos, I shall have no other thought than that he has a good race on Sunday, and a fair and equitable hearing.

[Jay]

I take back my earlier statement about him probably being guilty. From everything I have heard it sounds as though he did do it, but the media have been known to jump on stories and try to drive celebrities into the ground.

On the reverse side of things, I don't think Jos should recieve any special treatment because he is an F1 driver. It happens far to often in the US and Canada that someone who is rich or a celebrity gets many luxuries that would not be afforded to the average guy. I hope the Belgian system is different.

Mind you, I know nothing about the Belgian justice system, so I can't really comment on the trial or its procedings.

I don't really had an opinion on Jos as a driver. We would have to put him in a McLaren or Ferrari to see where he really is.

[Peter Mallett]

Well that report appears in the Dutch press today. It says he faces up to Twee (that's dutch for "two") years if found guilty.

[Toth]

I just read in the paper that Verstappen went to the court yesterday. Also he denies having hit the man. His Father admitted to have hit someone but does not admit he caused the serious injuries. The charges can vary between 2 months and 2 years.

According to a newspaper, so...

[Nuvolari]

This from the BBC Web Site:



Jos Verstappen has been charged with assault

Formula One driver Jos Verstappen has been accused in a Belgian court of fracturing a man's skull in a fight two years ago.
Verstappen was not in court for the opening of a hearing into a charge of assault, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail.

The 28-year-old Arrows driver, who was represented by his lawyer, denies the charge.

Prosecutors say Verstappen assaulted a 45-year-old man at a karting track in the Belgian town of Lanaken in May 1998.



Vedrstappen is in Japan preparing for the 8 October Grand Prix


The court in Tongeren was told Verstappen and his 53-year-old father became involved in an incident with other drivers during a race.

"We've demanded a tough sentence," assistant public prosecutor Cedric Stuyck said.

Verstappen's lawyer demanded an acquittal claiming that "there existed no proof that it was Verstappen who had indeed struck the victim".

The judge is expected to rule on 30 October.

Verstappen is in Japan ahead of the penultimate Grand Prix of the season, which takes place on 8 October.

[Liz]

Jay, English libel laws are some of the toughest in the world - please be very very careful about speculations as to anyone's guilt, as you could get Craig in a world of trouble! This is not a joke. I know someone who was able to retire to a nice house in Jersey on the proceeds of a libel suit when he'd actually served time for a crime he maintains he did not commit, and a police officer wrote a book that said he did it - not he was convicted of doing it, which was the actual fact of the matter.

I have heard that Jos has a temper. But there are also many people around who think it is a good way to make a quick buck by accusing someone well off and famous of doing something - figuring he will get a settlement to go away.

But I will await the outcome of the trial before I comment further and I suggest that others do the same on these pages anyway.

[Nuvolari]

Naturally, the presumption of innocence should apply. If it turns out that the evidence supports the charges -- and their are no mitigating circumstances -- I trust the court won't be influenced by Verstappen's celebrity in handing down a sentence.

[Jay]

Liz, I never said he was guilty. All I said was that based off of the information that I have read from several sources I would conclude that he is guilty. Several witnesses said that Jos committed assault. That does not mean that he did do it thought. I can sight cases where several witnesses said someone committed murder, and was even convicted, when eventually DNA evidence proved them wrong.
All I said was that he should be treated like any other Joe six pack who get gets charged with assualt, and not be given the "He's rich and famous, he can't go to jail with common folk." attitude that they have in the US.

I did not go anywhere near libel, even saying "He probably did it" is not libel!

[Sparky]

I marvel at the methods the press will use to get your attention.

This is from Reuters:

Dutch Formula One driver Jos Verstappen fractured a man's skull in an incident at a Belgian karting track, a court heard on Monday.

It's not until you read the very end of the sentence that you realize that it is an accusation, not a fact.

The tabloid press used to be the main culprits, but it seems everyone is using this approach now.
How many times have you picked up a magazine with a wild cover story?
Something like: "Michael Schumacher will drive for Minardi next year"
It's not until you turn to the feature page, and discover that is the opinion of the motorsport editor, and nothing more.

It's a sleazy trick, but it works...

[Liz]

"As it sounds like he is" guilty is too close for comfort. I'm not accusing you either, Jay, just saying to be careful.

It'll be interesting to see if AutoSport or anybody have any coverage of this sad occurrence (or non-occurrence) and what they say.

[Nuvolari]

Don't you read complete sentences, Sparky?

[Peter Mallett]

Well,

If he is found guilty, I fully expect the sentence to go like his races. He'll serve about two thirds of it.

[Liz]

Very cute, Peter. Very cute.

Nothing in the news here about it either way.

[Liz]

[Double Post]

[Sparky]

Orignally posted by Nuvolari:

Don't you read complete sentences, Sparky?

Yes of course I do, otherwise I wouldn't have realised you were talking to me

What I meant was, the opening line is there to grab you by the eyeballs and make you want to read about the shocking 'facts'.

I just remember a time when the motoring press was a little bit more responsible...

[R]

Jos deserves a fair trial no matter what has happened. The fact that he's famous shouldn't count in any way. He's innocent until proven otherwise, and that's how it should be.

[Gerard]

OK, here's the story. Sorry I didn't reply earlier but I've been a little bit busy these days.

First of all, the Belgian justice system is different than in other countries.
It was not a trial but a hearing.
In Belgium, there will always be a hearing a soon as someone files a complaint.
The victim did that but in the meantime matters are long solved between him and Jos.
Jos paid a certain amount of money to the victim, not to say he's guilty but because, yes, indeed it was a fight between Jos' company and a whole lot of other people.
In other countries one can withdraw a complaint, but in Belgium this can not.
So, although things are solved between the two parties there still has to be a hearing.

What happened that night at the karting centre?
I wasn't there, but there are always two sides at a story.
Jos went to the centre with some friends just to have a couple of hours of fun.
The story goes he wanted the place for his company alone and everyone else would have to leave.
Well, that's not the way things work and Jos knows that. He's been exploiting a karting centre himself for several years and he knows exactly what can be done and what cannot.
So they just mingled with other visitors.
But he's a wellknown person and as it ususally goes, people
started bothering him. You know, a signature here and a photo there.
Although Jos usually is very happy to spent time with his fans, that particular night he didn't feel for it. He's only human, you know.
As soon as others started to annoy him while he was driving, like cutting him off etc, that put the lid on.
Jos and his company made it very clear they were there to enjoy themselves and asked to be left alone.
Then someone started calling names and others started pushing.
Some people from Jos' company pushed back and before they knew it, a whole lot of people were fighting. Even folks who were eating in the restaurant stormed in to join.
When the fight was over one guy was lying on the floor, badly injured.
Witnesses said they saw a guy in a red overall who pushed the victim.
Jos was wearing a red overall, but to make the story complete, so were others.
The victim later filed a complaint against Jos and that's why there is a hearing.
Jos paid the victim for several reasons. He fully understands that it was a matter between his company and the victim's company.
He's really feeling extremely bad about what happened and is still asking himself why this all went the way it did.
He says he's innocent and that's good enough for me.

[Liz]

I'm glad to have Jos' side of the story. As usual the press makes it sound quite different from what actually happened.

Thanks for telling us, Gerard.

[Sparky]

EXACTLY what Liz said.

Thanks Geard; I knew you'd keep us informed

[Nuvolari]

One presumes Jos has the opportunity to tell reporters his side of the story, does he not?

In the absence of statements by the principals, journalists must rely on those who will talk and report what they know. That doesn't make it ultimate, unassailable fact. It's what is known. That can, and often does, change.

With all due respect to a man who may have been victimized by an unscrupulous individual, Jos' protestations of innocence don't necessarily relieve him of culpability. But if the dispute's been settled to the satisfaction of all, I would expect the court to drop the matter.

[Don K]

Originally posted by Nuvolari
One presumes Jos has the opportunity to tell reporters his side of the story, does he not?

In the absence of statements by the principals, journalists must rely ...

Unfortunately, some statements do have more news-value
than others.

Back in '98, when this happened, the press here in The Netherlands first started shouting that Jos had hit someone just because that person had had the nerve to overtake him.
As far as I remember, one day later the newspapers were talking about Jos having booked the track exclusively for his company during that hour. But of course that was no longer front-page news.
There may have been some short articles in local newspapers during the rest of the week in which Jos' statement was quoted, but at this moment I don't remember having seen them two and a half years ago.

I assume Jos was in Japan during this hearing. So if the news articles has been written immediately after the hearing, they can not include Jos' reaction.
And his reaction would certainly have signifficantly less news value than the original article ...

[Liz]

The old Journo motto is "If it bleeds, it leads." That is, they are most interested in worst-case stories, and of course in making good people look as bad as possible (because the "common people" they think like to see the famous and well off come to grief). Retractions always make page 54 in the obituary pages and follow-up stories that prove their original story was wrong are buried.

In this case the less Jos says the better, I think; just to say "the matter has been settled" and move on is probably plenty. And then if the other guy starts saying things that are untrue, he can counter those.

But a dignified silence is usually the best defence.

[Nuvolari]

Let's dispense with this first:

"The old Journo motto is "If it bleeds, it leads." That is, they are most interested in worst-case stories, and of course in making good people look as bad as possible (because the "common people" they think like to see the famous and well off come to grief). Retractions always make page 54 in the obituary pages and follow-up stories that prove their original story was wrong are buried."

A distortion and a broad-brush indictment. It holds up only as the flimsiest generalization.



"Back in '98, when this happened, the press here in The Netherlands first started shouting that Jos had hit someone just because that person had had the nerve to overtake him."

I can only ask: Were the papers themselves making the accusation or reporting an allegation? The difference is critical, is it not?

"As far as I remember, one day later the newspapers were talking about Jos having booked the track exclusively for his company during that hour. But of course that was no longer front-page news."

Not every story is front-page news every day, is it? But if a story is fairly treated, even off page one, then readers have the opportunity to follow it as it develops.