Giggs stands down

The evidence has finished and the jury will decide. I've obviously not heard all of what was said but it sounds like the judge was quite generous to Giggs from this:

 
Bluebeard said:
What does this mean
Click to expand...
The CPS can try him again, they might not. I always thought that this was a particularly stupid thing about the English system, if you can't find someone guilty then surely he is innocent in the eyes of the law? The not proven verdict in Scotland gets a lot of flak but at least it can everyone finality.
 
BroomloanWATP said:
The CPS can try him again, they might not. I always thought that this was a particularly stupid thing about the English system, if you can't find someone guilty then surely he is innocent in the eyes of the law? The not proven verdict in Scotland gets a lot of flak but at least it can everyone finality.
Click to expand...
The result had to be unanimous either way, so clearly the jury were split.

Which to me means it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt. But I agree on Not Proven, in this instance it’s probably correct. Ie Giggs was probably guilty but it’s impossible to say for sure.
 
Barrymoped said:
The result had to be unanimous either way, so clearly the jury were split.

Which to me means it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt. But I agree on Not Proven, in this instance it’s probably correct. Ie Giggs was probably guilty but it’s impossible to say for sure.
Click to expand...
Just pick juries of 15 like they do in a real legal system B-D.
 
Barrymoped said:
The result had to be unanimous either way, so clearly the jury were split.

Which to me means it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt. But I agree on Not Proven, in this instance it’s probably correct. Ie Giggs was probably guilty but it’s impossible to say for sure.
Click to expand...
Didn't the Judge direct the other day that he would accept a majority verdict?

EDIT: Had to be a 10-1 majority apparently. They told the Judge there was 'no real prospect' of them reaching that sort of level even after further deliberation, so I'm guessing at least 3, maybe more, of the Jurors were not prepared to convict. End of the day it has to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' and if three or more of the Jurors won't convict there has to be some doubt in there.
 
Last edited:
Barrymoped said:
The result had to be unanimous either way, so clearly the jury were split.

Which to me means it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt. But I agree on Not Proven, in this instance it’s probably correct. Ie Giggs was probably guilty but it’s impossible to say for sure.
Click to expand...
It didn’t have to be unanimous, the judge said that the court would accept a majority verdict.
 
He was never being found guilty. It was like the Ken Barlow / Bill Roache trial all over again. These people are heroes in Manchester. The locals were never sending them to jail.
 
Barrymoped said:
The result had to be unanimous either way, so clearly the jury were split.

Which to me means it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt. But I agree on Not Proven, in this instance it’s probably correct. Ie Giggs was probably guilty but it’s impossible to say for sure.
Click to expand...

Judge had allowed a majority verdict. Not that it changes the valid points you make.
 
muttley said:
He was never being found guilty. It was like the Ken Barlow / Bill Roache trial all over again. These people are heroes in Manchester. The locals were never sending them to jail.
Click to expand...

Was it a vote or something for all with a Manchester postcode?
 
DJ Blue said:
He got away with it but the prosecution could take it to trial again with a new jury.
Click to expand...
Got away with it for now but guilty as sin. Wonder what the real story with the juror who was ill is and how many of the others are manure fans. Or just manure in general.
Expect to read about him arsing about in Dubai by the weekend.
 
Fact is he probably was guilty but it was his word against hers. Pretty sure she also lost phones that she said had evidence on them. Can't convict on probably
 
Thommo2006 said:
Fact is he probably was guilty but it was his word against hers. Pretty sure she also lost phones that she said had evidence on them. Can't convict on probably
Click to expand...
Not really. For one of the main charges her sister was supposedly a witness. There's clearly a bit more to it than the tabloid headlines would have us believe. The guy is clearly a cretin, his past history tells you that, but it 'should' have been an easy conviction based on the lurid headlines - but wasn't. Be telling if they decide they won't go for a retrial.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Not really. For one of the main charges her sister was supposedly a witness. There's clearly a bit more to it than the tabloid headlines would have us believe. The guy is clearly a cretin, his past history tells you that, but it 'should' have been an easy conviction based on the lurid headlines - but wasn't. Be telling if they decide they won't go for a retrial.
Click to expand...
Not exactly an independent witness is it? Like I say he probably was guilty but that's not enough to convict
 
Barrymoped said:
The result had to be unanimous either way, so clearly the jury were split.

Which to me means it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt. But I agree on Not Proven, in this instance it’s probably correct. Ie Giggs was probably guilty but it’s impossible to say for sure.
Click to expand...
An English jury can give a 10-2,majority verdict.
This is verdict means that three or more jurors were not prepared to convict.
Well I have no sympathy for Ryan Giggs, that should be a not guilty verdict.
 
Last edited:
Thommo2006 said:
Not exactly an independent witness is it? Like I say he probably was guilty but that's not enough to convict
Click to expand...
You mean she lied? Or at least some of the Jurors didn't believe her.:)

We broadly agree. Balance of Probability is not appropriate for criminal trials. As with all such cases, as members of the public looking in from afar we are dependant upon what the media choose to report - and the Prosecution case is always the one that grabs all the attention. Partly because it comes first, partly because that's where all the lurid stuff tends to come out.
 
didn’t know at the time but me, the missus and kids sat with her on a train to London from Manchester a couple of months ago just before the trial. Never dawned on me at the time who she was but seemed like a really nice person and was chatting away. Quite heavily pregnant with her new fellas kid.

We were living in Worsley at the same time around the corner from her and Giggs. See him quite a bit in his restaurant; George’s.

Small world.
 
Barrymoped said:
The result had to be unanimous either way, so clearly the jury were split.

Which to me means it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt. But I agree on Not Proven, in this instance it’s probably correct. Ie Giggs was probably guilty but it’s impossible to say for sure.
Click to expand...
Sure the judge said he'd accept a majority verdict so they must be split 6/6
 
ThumpThumpThump said:
Might now go to a tribunal to get the Wales job back. Clearly a wrong un.
Click to expand...

God no, comes with far too much baggage and wasn't wanted in the role by the vast majority of Welsh supporters anyway. Page has done an excellent job and will continue.

He may seek some 'compensation' but he's done in the role.
 
I think he most probably was guilty but there was a lot of stuff that came out about her in the trial the made a conviction look a bit unlikely to me.

When the police asked for evidence of the abusive texts she initially refused to hand over her phone and then later claimed one has been stolen and she dropped another one in the sea.

She was also caught in emails colluding with her pal to stage photos for the press of her with bruising.

It also seemed she was having an affair too.

There’s similarities in the Salmond trial in that he’s obviously a wrong’un but too many holes in the victims evidence/credibility of witnesses.
 
munkoomccoist said:
didn’t know at the time but me, the missus and kids sat with her on a train to London from Manchester a couple of months ago just before the trial. Never dawned on me at the time who she was but seemed like a really nice person and was chatting away. Quite heavily pregnant with her new fellas kid.

We were living in Worsley at the same time around the corner from her and Giggs. See him quite a bit in his restaurant; George’s.

Small world.
Click to expand...
Just cos I have never done this before- but

Cool story bro;)

bucket list ticked!!!!
 
If there was a 'not proven' verdict in England then that's what the Giggs verdict would have been today. It will be interesting to see if there will be a retrial. I have no doubt there will be an outcry from various sources for there to be one.
 
Coisty09 said:
An English jury can give a 10-2,majority verdict.
This is verdict means that three or more jurors were not prepared to convict.
Well I have no sympathy for Ryan Giggs, that should be a not guilty verdict.
Click to expand...

As I've said in another post, it would have been a 'not proven' verdict in Scotland. The 'not proven' verdict is often maligned but in cases like that of Giggs where a jury genuinely cannot agree, it actually looks like a sensible option.
 
jimbear said:
As I've said in another post, it would have been a 'not proven' verdict in Scotland. The 'not proven' verdict is often maligned but in cases like that of Giggs where a jury genuinely cannot agree, it actually looks like a sensible option.
Click to expand...
I do agree with you but ‘not proven’ would be very useful in England but as it’s not there, in law he should have been found not guilty
 
jimbear said:
As I've said in another post, it would have been a 'not proven' verdict in Scotland. The 'not proven' verdict is often maligned but in cases like that of Giggs where a jury genuinely cannot agree, it actually looks like a sensible option.
Click to expand...
Cases involving high profile footballers or clubs should be decided by a panel of judges, not a jury.

The Craig Whyte trial is the perfect example. Bheggars were desperate to get on the jury and some did, yet Rangers fans weren’t allowed?!
 
HighlandLoyal3036 said:
I cant believe in this day and age juries are still used. The general public are thick as mince and using them to decide the future of people really isn't good!
Click to expand...

Been called for Jury Duty once before and thankfully my name didn't get drawn out.

Apart from the obvious, my name being read out in front of the defendant, I couldn't face having to collaborate with some genuine halfwits over serving justice and impacting someone's immediate future.

There were two old geezers wearing brown cardigans who got picked, and they were visibly pumped about the situation. Just know they were going to try and take over and be insufferable, I don't have the patience for that shit.
 
Coisty09 said:
I do agree with you but ‘not proven’ would be very useful in England but as it’s not there, in law he should have been found not guilty
Click to expand...

No disagreement on that. Back in the day when Scots Law originally only had the two verdicts (which were 'Proven' and 'Not Proven'), 'Not Proven' actually meant the same as 'Not Guilty'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top