Quote Originally Posted by superfeathers View Post
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.