Surely the jury should side with the defendant where there's no evidence? What happened to being innocent until proven guilty? Jeremy - "It's a joke. She's obviously guilty" Mark - "Why? Has she taken the stand? What's her alibi?" Jeremy - "She's the guilty type; she looks shifty" Mark - "Shifty...?" Jeremy - "Yeah. You know the type: dressed up for court, but wouldn't look out of place with a can of strong lager and an incredibly cheap *** in her mouth" Mark - "I thought you were gonna acquit?" Jeremy - "She's white. Plus, I was talking to another jury bloke and he thinks the same. I think we're all thinking the same, basically: no smoke without fire" Mark - "No smoke without fire?! Is that what a thousand years of the English judicial system comes down to; no smoke without fire?!"
We have a duty to respect the decision of the jury, justice for all it's what makes this country great.
The mother and daughter should be charged for telling lies ,unfair they walk away from this not being named , they had nothing to lose
It might be the old Scottish "Not Proven",or not.Without knowing all the evidence it's hard to say.I have felt uneasy about the case from the outset though,I do suspect the motives of his accusers.
This thread had no posts for 7 months, in the 2 posts I've put on in the last day I've said there is no scientific or medical evidence that he'd done anything. I also stated that there was no child porn on his computer. I had a fear that it would come down to who the jury thought was telling the truth, thankfully it would appear the lack of evidence has led to the not guilty verdict. I don't have a legal background but I am curious how a case like this with no evidence actually got to court.
Really? You do realise the CPS don't take spurious cases to court, so if they saw fit to prosecute then they obviously thought there was sufficient evidence to get a conviction.
Zeitgeist. The CPS are a bunch of third rate tosspots.Last time I went into a court I wiped the floor with the best man they could put out.
Bullshit. They were caught up in the furore over Savile and acted in a reactionary way, not a logical one. There was no evidence to back up the 'victims' claim and it was simply a case of her word against his which was highly unlikely to be enough for a conviction. No doubt you'll tell us that the police found Maddie hidden in his basement but "the jury were not party [to this] for legal reasons".
Am I right in thinking that in Scotland there must be corroboratory evidence before a case can go to court ? The testimony of a person is not enough there must be other evidence to back this up ? I do believe that they are trying to do away with this rule which is mental going by what has happened in this case . A very expensive court case which ultimately was ones persons word against anothers .
