Retrial for Giggs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62806864

A years delay, good grief. Benefits no one

In the absence of there being any new evidence (or additional evidence that they failed to present in court) this seems utterly pointless. It does beg the question if this is being pursued due to the high profile of the accused rather than the evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpersforGoalposts

In the absence of there being any new evidence (or additional evidence that they failed to present in court) this seems utterly pointless. It does beg the question if this is being pursued due to the high profile of the accused rather than the evidence.

---

Fully agree
Im no fan of Giggs but if this was your every day person it wouldnt have made it to court the first time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

A years delay, good grief. Benefits no one

---

Lawyers are probably happy 💷💷💷💷

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfeathers

Fully agree
Im no fan of Giggs but if this was your every day person it wouldnt have made it to court the first time

---

If there was enough evidence for some of jury to find him guilty, even though it wasn't enough to convict then I would suggest that it would have gone to court whoever it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfeathers

Fully agree
Im no fan of Giggs but if this was your every day person it wouldnt have made it to court the first time

---

It must be a lot of pressure, his life is on hold and as Dave Jones will tell you, no smoke without fire is not a nice place to be especially when the court cases are taking years.

At least we’ll be able to hear his poems again maybe even some new material.

We don't know how close he was to be convicted or to being found not guilty. The lack of a judgement either way does the system no good whatsoever and will only discourage other potential victims to come forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardM

If there was enough evidence for some of jury to find him guilty, even though it wasn't enough to convict then I would suggest that it would have gone to court whoever it was.

---

That’s very unfair and very much the “no smoke
Without fire” argument. As much as he comes across as a bit of a scumbag in the evidence, what part did you hear that you felt made him guilty of what he was actually in court for?

And a majority verdict in this case meant “(the judge) would accept verdicts on which at least 10 of the 11 jurors agreed”

So potentially because two people chosen from a cross section of an absolutely mental country didn’t agree, the guy has to put his life on hold for another year

Whatever you think of Giggs, that doesn’t seem fair to me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfeathers

That’s very unfair and very much the “no smoke
Without fire” argument. As much as he comes across as a bit of a scumbag in the evidence, what part did you hear that you felt made him guilty of what he was actually in court for?

And a majority verdict in this case meant “(the judge) would accept verdicts on which at least 10 of the 11 jurors agreed”

So potentially because two people chosen from a cross section of an absolutely mental country didn’t agree, the guy has to put his life on hold for another year

Whatever you think of Giggs, that doesn’t seem fair to me

---

I wasn't on the jury, I didn't hear anything to make me think he is guilty. I was merely arguing against the point made earlier that it would never have gone to court in the first place if it wasn't Giggs
My view now is that if one jury couldn't reach a verdict why should we expect another to if there is no new evidence? To me it is a waste of time and unfair to have a retrial without fresh evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardM

I wasn't on the jury, I didn't hear anything to make me think he is guilty. I was merely arguing against the point made earlier that it would never have gone to court in the first place if it wasn't Giggs
My view now is that if one jury couldn't reach a verdict why should we expect another to if there is no new evidence? To me it is a waste of time and unfair to have a retrial without fresh evidence.

---

I get your point, but this was a very well publicised trial so you didn’t need to be on the jury to see the evidence.

I can’t think of what piece of evidence brought that justified this ever getting to court, other than his name.

With the loss of two phones and denial of access to iCloud from her, the evidence was just hearsay, unreliable, and I’m surprised this didn’t get thrown out straight away

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfeathers

That’s very unfair and very much the “no smoke
Without fire” argument. As much as he comes across as a bit of a scumbag in the evidence, what part did you hear that you felt made him guilty of what he was actually in court for?

And a majority verdict in this case meant “(the judge) would accept verdicts on which at least 10 of the 11 jurors agreed”

So potentially because two people chosen from a cross section of an absolutely mental country didn’t agree, the guy has to put his life on hold for another year

Whatever you think of Giggs, that doesn’t seem fair to me

---

Quite a lot of it suggested he was guilty too me. You mention because two people didn't agree he has to put his life on hold but on the flip side because two people didn't agree the woman gets no justice at all? Can go either way.

The most ridiculous part of the whole thing (in law in general) is that a woman is trying to get a conviction for coercive control behind closed doors and he's able to bring in Alex Ferguson to give a character reference saying because he was great in training 10 years ago he would never have done that. Don't see what character references bring to any trial, especially when you can handpick who you get them from, hardly going to be a true reflection of a person.

I think you're wrong that if he was the average guy on the street it wouldn't have gone to court. But if he was the average guy on the street he definitely wouldn't have been able too call upon someone with such influence to give him a glowing character reference. Hard to believe that hasn't tipped one or two starstruck jurors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunderlandBluebird

Quite a lot of it suggested he was guilty too me. You mention because two people didn't agree he has to put his life on hold but on the flip side because two people didn't agree the woman gets no justice at all? Can go either way.

The most ridiculous part of the whole thing (in law in general) is that a woman is trying to get a conviction for coercive control behind closed doors and he's able to bring in Alex Ferguson to give a character reference saying because he was great in training 10 years ago he would never have done that. Don't see what character references bring to any trial, especially when you can handpick who you get them from, hardly going to be a true reflection of a person.

I think you're wrong that if he was the average guy on the street it wouldn't have gone to court. But if he was the average guy on the street he definitely wouldn't have been able too call upon someone with such influence to give him a glowing character reference. Hard to believe that hasn't tipped one or two starstruck jurors.

---

I understand your point but to assess what his behaviour may be like "behind closed doors" is it really irrelevant to bring a character reference outlining what he was previously like in multiple strained, highly pressured situations?

Out of interest, which particular piece of evidence would you have considered him guilty on?

Besides that I do get your point about the woman trying to get a conviction, but imo if you start convicting on evidence like that which was presented, then every ex-partner of every person (male or female) can fill their boots because there was nothing of substance (although I may have missed a bit that convinced you).