Ryan Giggs - Guilty or Innocent?

What a player.. absolutely class. Frightened the life out of full backs running at the with pace and trickery he possessed. That Man United team in the mid to late 90s were awesome.
 
Billy69_uk said:
I guess that technically he remains innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...
Again billy not quite he is presumed to be innocent until found guilty. The word presume is important. If he is found not guilty it says nothing about his innocence. The small difference is massive in law. I imagine you could continue to presume innocence if he is found not guilty. It doesn't mean he is innocent. It does mean there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
 
I
Ingleby_Flash said:
I know a senior Barrister very well and he is vey clear that you come out of court in England either guilty or innocent, no grey areas or doubt. He’s very strong on this point.
Click to expand...

I am going out on a limb here and going to say you either misunderstood your barrister friend or are misquoting him.

If you committed a crime you are guilty, if you didn't you are innocent. This is regardless of what a jury finds in its deliberation.

When considering what innocent means in law, rather than its literal meaning. A person is found not guilty, the phrasing is deliberate and it isn't found innocent for a reason.

You cannot, in the uk be retried, as double jeopardy applies as it does in many other countries. Even if someone admits a crime they cannot be retried if previously found not guilty. Its subtle but it is different and I can point you to many resources that would disagree with your charectatization of your barrister friend. Maybe missing some context?
 
Laughing said:
I

I am going out on a limb here and going to say you either misunderstood your barrister friend or are misquoting him.

If you committed a crime you are guilty, if you didn't you are innocent. This is regardless of what a jury finds in its deliberation.

When considering what innocent means in law, rather than its literal meaning. A person is found not guilty, the phrasing is deliberate and it isn't found innocent for a reason.

You cannot, in the uk be retried, as double jeopardy applies as it does in many other countries. Even if someone admits a crime they cannot be retried if previously found not guilty. Its subtle but it is different and I can point you to many resources that would disagree with your charectatization of your barrister friend. Maybe missing some context?
Click to expand...
Double Jeopardy law was changed in 2003, leading to retrials (and convictions) for the Stephen Lawrence murder
 
I think he is an abhorrent human being. The first time I saw him doing pundetry I thought he was as thick as mince. Not that there is any crime in that.
But it does highlight the way in which he's being lorded because of his skill and ability as a footballer, and not much else. This in itself brings a certain amount of entitlement to indeviduals. Especially those without the mental capacity to think critically.
It's a short step from there to thinking you are above the law.

He'll be found innocent most likely from what I've read on the case. I've followed it with a keen interest.
Innocent due to the ability of a good barrister. Guilty as sin of being a cr@ppy person and treating women with utter contempt.

I hope I never see him on my tv ever again.
 
Laughing said:
I

I am going out on a limb here and going to say you either misunderstood your barrister friend or are misquoting him.

If you committed a crime you are guilty, if you didn't you are innocent. This is regardless of what a jury finds in its deliberation.

When considering what innocent means in law, rather than its literal meaning. A person is found not guilty, the phrasing is deliberate and it isn't found innocent for a reason.

You cannot, in the uk be retried, as double jeopardy applies as it does in many other countries. Even if someone admits a crime they cannot be retried if previously found not guilty. Its subtle but it is different and I can point you to many resources that would disagree with your charectatization of your barrister friend. Maybe missing some context?
Click to expand...
You may be correct about my interpretation, the particular example was a conversation about someone being found ’not guilty’ and his wife made the comment that ’we all know he’s guilty though’ My mate bit and said strongly ‘no the jury found him not guilty’. There may be some subtlety but at the end of the day not guilty walks.

Re double jeopardy youve accepted your minor error which I was going to relish correcting 😉. Billy Dunlop was yer first one. See also Stephen Lawrence.
 
Ingleby_Flash said:
You may be correct about my interpretation, the particular example was a conversation about someone being found ’not guilty’ and his wife made the comment that ’we all know he’s guilty though’ My mate bit and said strongly ‘no the jury found him not guilty’. There may be some subtlety but at the end of the day not guilty walks.

Re double jeopardy youve accepted your minor error which I was going to relish correcting 😉. Billy Dunlop was yer first one. See also Stephen Lawrence.
Click to expand...
I suspected there was a bit of context missing. The end result is the same in general though, tbf.

I think in the USA double jeopardy is enshrined in the constitution but their legal system is far more adversarial than ours.
 
Laughing said:
I suspected there was a bit of context missing. The end result is the same in general though, tbf.

I think in the USA double jeopardy is enshrined in the constitution but their legal system is far more adversarial than ours.
Click to expand...
It is enshrined in their constitution, I think it’s the fifth amendment. I won’t be seeing my mate until mid September but I’ll ask him his precise view.

He’s got some great stories btw, sadly most can’t be repeated for obvious reasons.
 
BigAl76 said:
I think he is an abhorrent human being. The first time I saw him doing pundetry I thought he was as thick as mince. Not that there is any crime in that.
But it does highlight the way in which he's being lorded because of his skill and ability as a footballer, and not much else. This in itself brings a certain amount of entitlement to indeviduals. Especially those without the mental capacity to think critically.
It's a short step from there to thinking you are above the law.

He'll be found innocent most likely from what I've read on the case. I've followed it with a keen interest.
Innocent due to the ability of a good barrister. Guilty as sin of being a cr@ppy person and treating women with utter contempt.

I hope I never see him on my tv ever again.
Click to expand...
I dont think you will see him on your TV screen any time soon after this.

It wouldn't surprise me if he went into poetry Instead of punditry :sneaky:.
 
W
Johnny Vincents Motorbike said:
i'm most surprised that the hearing was in Manchester - surely, Birmingham, Sheffield or Liverpool crown courts would have been more appropriate.

guilty from what ive read in media reports - the charge around coercive and controlling behaviour will take a little getting the jurys head around - but did you see the report (amongst other things) around his 19,000+ texts to her?

the head butting defence, dont make sense around a 'facing, tug of war' - and the elbow to the face to her sister is just a dismissive shabby response of a defence, almost contempt.

send him down.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. My feeling is he'll be found guilty, to at least some of the charges. I don't think he'll get a prison sentence though. Unfortunately.
 
Johnny Vincents Motorbike said:
i'm most surprised that the hearing was in Manchester - surely, Birmingham, Sheffield or Liverpool crown courts would have been more appropriate.

guilty from what ive read in media reports - the charge around coercive and controlling behaviour will take a little getting the jurys head around - but did you see the report (amongst other things) around his 19,000+ texts to her?

the head butting defence, dont make sense around a 'facing, tug of war' - and the elbow to the face to her sister is just a dismissive shabby response of a defence, almost contempt.

send him down.
Click to expand...
It would have had to have been a defence application to switch the trial for venue but for obvious reasons they would want the trial in Manchester.

You may recall the verdict of the Liverpool jury in the Steven Gerrard trial which involved an interesting analysis of the concept of self defence.
 
I'm really not a fan opf details of these court cases being made public during the trial. It turns a serious matter into a media circus and celebrity story which just doesn't sit well with me
 
wilkos_perm said:
I'm really not a fan opf details of these court cases being made public during the trial. It turns a serious matter into a media circus and celebrity story which just doesn't sit well with me
Click to expand...
Alot of trials are in the public interest though so there is no prospect of that changing any time soon. I would say even the Giggs trial could be classed as being in the public interest as there will be women up and down the country reading about the way he has treat her thinking "I get treat like that". Who knows, a high profile trial like this could be the tipping point for victims finally deciding to get out of an abusive relationship.
 
AC Jimbo said:
Alot of trials are in the public interest though so there is no prospect of that changing any time soon. I would say even the Giggs trial could be classed as being in the public interest as there will be women up and down the country reading about the way he has treat her thinking "I get treat like that". Who knows, a high profile trial like this could be the tipping point for victims finally deciding to get out of an abusive relationship.
Click to expand...
yeah i get that and i'd like to agree but the public doubt cast on her credibility in parts of the trial, and published by the media, doesn't really assist with giving great hope for the cause
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top