Jury fails to agree a verdict.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-reach-verdict
Printable View
Jury fails to agree a verdict.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-reach-verdict
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by superfeathers
Does make it strange though then that they wouldn't come to a majority not guilty verdictQuote:
Originally Posted by JumpersforGoalposts
(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….Quote:
Originally Posted by superfeathers
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.
There have to be at least 10 jurors in agreement for a majority verdict either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfeathers
i think you're right but seems to give a new definition to the word majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpersforGoalposts
not that im qualified to be suggesting a rule change :hehe:
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Dandruff
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
So not guilty then?! Lol ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by OurManFlint II
😆Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja
He's facing a re-trial but won't be til next June :facepalm:
would it be over and done in scotland with a not proven verdict?
Or not not not guilty :glasses:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Dandruff
I'm not a Giggs fan and he has a lot of history, very little good, with women. But I hope I'm fair. It seems to me that this case would never have come before a Judge if there wasn't a celebrity element. After all there is not much compelling evidence and it is understandable to me at least why the Jury failed to reach a verdict. When there is a lost phone with supposed valuable evidence the alarm bells would ring whoever the parties to the case are.
The question therefore is whether a retrial is in the public interest. Is it fair for example for the parties to put their lives on hold for at least another year until court time is available to re try this case? I think not especially given the paucity of evidence.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/19671...g-giggs-trial/
Gary Neville has been referred to the Attorney General for contempt of court after Ryan Giggs' trial was delayed over a comment he made.
In 1974 I had to go to magistrates court for a motoring offence.The verdict was not enough evidence.
Add to two lost phones the fact that the alleged victim didn't want to allow police access to her icloud, and i'm surprised this made court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vindec
I may be wrong but to me it comes across as a woman scorned, albeit by an arsehole. If you look at it as a neutral, seems pretty unfair on Giggs for this to be dragged through the courts again unless there's significant new evidence.
Let it go mun, life is too short :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by dandywarhol
:hehe::hehe::hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales