Jury fails to agree a verdict.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-reach-verdict
+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
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.
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.
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.
He's facing a re-trial but won't be til next June
would it be over and done in scotland with a not proven verdict?
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.
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.
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.
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.