Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

[Guest]

Jury fails to agree a verdict.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/31/ryan-giggs-trial-jury-discharged-after-failing-to-reach-verdict

[superfeathers]

Re: Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

I'm no fan of Giggs anymore.
But when I sat on a jury which was for an assault, we were reminded by the judge that to find the person guilty, we had to be entirely convinced by the prosecution of the guilt.
From what I've read of this story there doesn't seem to be a lot that convince you 100% of anything else than him being an arsehole.
And a good poet.

[JumpersforGoalposts]

Re: Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

I'm no fan of Giggs anymore.
But when I sat on a jury which was for an assault, we were reminded by the judge that to find the person guilty, we had to be entirely convinced by the prosecution of the guilt.
From what I've read of this story there doesn't seem to be a lot that convince you 100% of anything else than him being an arsehole.
And a good poet.

I agree (apart from the poet bit)

[superfeathers]

Re: Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

I agree (apart from the poet bit)

Does make it strange though then that they wouldn't come to a majority not guilty verdict
(you can't have read the poem fully, and all the layers of meaning).

[Bobby Dandruff]

Re: Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

Does make it strange though then that they wouldn't come to a majority not guilty verdict
(you can't have read the poem fully, and all the layers of meaning).

As a jury is a cross section of society (which is as it should be) it therefore includes all sorts….

I did jury service recently and as another poster mentioned above, from what I read about the Giggs case there didn’t seem much if any evidence to definitively conclude that he did it. In which case you’d HAVE to find him not guilty of the charge.

No one comes out of this with their reputation enhanced in any way.

[JumpersforGoalposts]

Re: Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

Does make it strange though then that they wouldn't come to a majority not guilty verdict
(you can't have read the poem fully, and all the layers of meaning).

There have to be at least 10 jurors in agreement for a majority verdict either way.

[superfeathers]

Re: Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

There have to be at least 10 jurors in agreement for a majority verdict either way.

i think you're right but seems to give a new definition to the word majority.
not that im qualified to be suggesting a rule change :hehe:

[North Cardiff Blue]

Re: Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

As a jury is a cross section of society (which is as it should be) it therefore includes all sorts….

I did jury service recently and as another poster mentioned above, from what I read about the Giggs case there didn’t seem much if any evidence to definitively conclude that he did it. In which case you’d HAVE to find him not guilty of the charge.

No one comes out of this with their reputation enhanced in any way.

Agreed you've only got to look on here nine people could say Scott Parker is rubbish and should have been sacked, but there's always one that will think he is brilliant and that they'd have won the Premier if he had stayed!

[Cyclops]

Re: Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

I'm not surprised at this verdict.
Although not following the case in detail, there seemed to be loose ends, like what she texted after an episode when she claimed Giggs had mistreated her and phone/s going missing.

[OurManFlint II]

Re: Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

I did jury service, fully enjoyed it, it was more like the Peep Show than 12 Angry Men. Guy was definitely guilty in my case but the evidence just wasn't clear enough.

[bobh]

Re: Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

Not surprised at all.
It was all one word against another, but the clincher for me was, as in the Vardy/Rooney case, the convenient loss of her phone which allegedly contained evidence that supported Giggs's version of events.

[Ninja]

Re: Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
Both have issues looking through some of the crap they've said in court.
I'm sure Giggs will be a happy man, he can start writing his book of poetry now and get straight back into town later to find some more "clunge".

[MacAdder]

Re: Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

Complete waste of time and money if you ask me.

As has been said, it is not a surprising verdict as "evidence" seemed very sparse.

Giggs's reputation has nosedived since the trial's beginning which should be all the accuser could have realistically hoped for.

I'm sure he'll be back in football at some time in the future as his "less than clean" profile seems to fit modern day football's overriding image.

[Bobby Dandruff]

Re: Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

I did jury service, fully enjoyed it, it was more like the Peep Show than 12 Angry Men. Guy was definitely guilty in my case but the evidence just wasn't clear enough.

So not guilty then?! Lol ;-)

[Lither_1927]

Re: Giggs not guilty but not not guilty!

6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
Both have issues looking through some of the crap they've said in court.
I'm sure Giggs will be a happy man, he can start writing his book of poetry now and get straight back into town later to find some more "clunge".

😆