Quote Originally Posted by RichardM View Post
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