Boards
'The Verdict'
Anyone else watch this last night? I'm glad I did, I really, really enjoyed it. I love the mix of people on the jury, and the whole story has been done really, really well I think.
I also love Stanley Victor Collymore more than should be natural for a grown man.
I share the love for Stanley
It was awesome watching him rabbit on in defence of wrongly accused high profile footballing rapists. The big dogging shit.
Exactly
I love the way he wouldn't let anyone else speak. Even after Archer had had a word.
All while sounding like Gordon Grimley
I was going to watch this
What was the crime? I was watching 'America's Next Top Model' instead.
Top-flight footballers
accused of raping a girl in a hotel bedroom. Tonight's episode will centre around a disputed pube, which fills me with glee.
I actually giggled at the phrase 'insertion of the penis' last night. How to make light of rape :( I'd be crap on a jury.
you giggled several times at that
and 'he put his penis into my bottom'. Don't ever do jury duty.
jury duty
is awesome.
I liked how Stan Collymore and Alex James
were giggling together in the back row.
I'm not sure if the rape happened, but I don't think Anna was in on the tabloid tape thing. That Claire was an evil bitch.
Is it like 'The Distance' by Cake?
God I'm funny. I don't have a telly for another 2 weeks.
i didn't watch it
but from the trailer it looked as though sarah payne's mother was one of the jurors. which i find utterly disgusting.
her and jeffrey archer.
^this, pretty much
I watched Jonathan Ross slowly die on the Baftas instead.
She was
She was the most annoying person on there, I think. One of my favourite moments was Michael Denzil Xavier Portillo going round the room asking for everyone's opinions. 'Alex? Stan? Jennifer? Megaman?'
MegamanLOL.
LOL
seriously though, how can that woman justify being on tv? it really is just trading off her daughter's death.
SICK AND WRONG.
oh, is that who it was?! I thought she looked familiar
she's no Stan Collymore.
NO-ONE
can live up to the majesty and magnificence of Stanley Victor.
:D
what happened to his premiership come back?
I'm glad it's on hold
if it means more of him on our TV screens :)
I really enjoyed it
It is good to see "real" lawyers in action. I thought the actress playing the alleged victim was brilliant.
It really pisses me off though, that Archer is getting paid money to be on something like this.
Yeah
I liked the candid snatches of conversation between the two defence lawyers. Heartwarming, almost. Almost...
Best thing i've read today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F6558955?thread=3880502
Stan is smarter than I thought. Maybe.
LOL - best reply to Stan's long post
"Hi Stan, who wrote that for you?"
I like Stan's reply to that
For what you'd expect from a dogging ex-pro footballer who always seemed a bit away with the faries, it's rather good.
I did really enjoy this programme
and of course only hearing the one side of the argument cross examined is no basis upon which to reach a verdict.
The problem with a programme like this (and 'Consent' on Channel 4 not so long ago) is that at the end of the day, it is FICTION and the jury are being asked to give a verdict on something that has not actually happened. Whether this subconciously taints their views, whether an actor doesn't quite give a 'performance' they should...all may have an effect on the verdict reached.
As for Stan Collymore, his post ^^ is correct. Juries have to reach a verdict beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence presented to them and nothing more. Putting aside his slightly aggressive overbearing persona, he himself said in the programme that 'Loads of footballers have rape stories published about them in the papers and not one of them has been prosecuted by the CPS' - thus inferring that this case would be similar. Surely this point of view though is influencing him extraneously to the evidence presented in front of him? And surely as the CPS have (fictionally) decided to prosecute this case, that indicates that there is a case to answer?
Also re physical bruising - not everyone bruises easily.
well, this was depressing
wasn't it? Almost all the jury thought a rape happened, but they all had to say not guilty. It definitely showed why so few rape cases lead to convictions.
It's just given
licence to commit rape really, as this proves that even if everyone suspects you're guilty, there's pretty much fuck all they can do about it when it's only one word against another.
I'm off on a raping spree. Laters!
Methinks
this hasn't exactly turned out as the BBC expected - now they'll know how lawyers feel when you have to rely on 12 individuals.
I think they set it up expected Stan Collymore and Megaman to have closed "not guilty" minds from the start, resulting in a 10/2 majority guilty verdict. I don't think they took into account that a forceful character (Stan Collymore), misunderstanding the judges use of the word evidence, would influence the other jurors to the point that they would find people they thought guilty, not guilty because of a lack of physical evidence. Dominic McVey was the only one that seemed to understand that evidence also includes the witness testimonies. For Sara Payne to say that she thought a rape had occurred, but the prosecution hadn,t proved their case was a contradiction - if she could say that the she thought a rape had occurred, then the prosecution HAD proved their case to HER.
I was really glad I watched the programme. It was really interesting to see how the jury system works and how personalities can affect the outcome. I did find it really upsetting though and I just wish they hadn't chosen rape as the subject because I agree it will put women off reporting rape - it has demonstrated that even if you're believed by a juror, they may still find the person not guilty.
At least in Scotland we have the "not proven" verdict, which although acquitting the accused, lets the victim know that they were believed. [/smuggness]
'not proven' is a bit rubbish, though, isn't it?
It's kind of like the a bunch of old wives saying "There's no smoke without fire...".
The media proves that people WANT to think the worst in all cases, which is really why you have the 'innocent until proven guilty' because the knee-jerk assumption is always "GUILTY".
no... not if it's used properly
The point of it is for cases where the juror has the gut instinct that a crime was committed, but due to the lack of (usually) physical evidence they decide they cannot find the accused guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".
The not proven verdict shows exactly what the jury thinks, which is you're guilty, but we can't prove it...and we don't want the world to think you were a victim of a false accusation.