The Verdict

[Structaural]

I think the Verdict can, if kept on track, be a good show.
What has come out though is that the truth can not really exist. Its men vs, women, mc vs wc, views etc etc. Worth watching tonight.

One thing I have learned for certain. Thank God Archer didn't become Mayor of London ffs! He comes across as a sleazy,( oozing up to Elison) condescending dirty old git imho!

As far as the case goes I tend to agree with the footballer Collymore is it(?)on the panel so far, although I dislike his ways and mouth. I have seen no EVIDENCE of rape yet.

So far....NOT GUILTY.

After watching the programme I would have convicted them. I think there was sufficient evidence. What say others?

 

[editor]

After watching the programme I would have convicted them. I think there was sufficient evidence. What say others?

Like most of the jurors, I think that rape may have taken place, but on the evidence alone, I couldn't say that I was 100% convinced of their guilt.

 

[DJ Squelch]

I was surprised they reached the verdict they did. I thought it would of gone the other way. I agree it was good TV and that indeed Megaman is a cock.

 

[Structaural]

Like most of the jurors, I think that rape may have taken place, but on the evidence alone, I couldn't say that I was 100% convinced of their guilt.

Not even the second count? No alibi, an anal tear consistent with the girl's testimony, and a pubic hair (which was never disputed by an expert only a solicitor). Or would you have not convicted on every count?

 

[gaijingirl]

I saw some, but not all of this. What verdict did they reach? And do they "reveal all" afterwards - ie what truthfully happened?

 

[editor]

Not even the second count? No alibi, an anal tear consistent with the girl's testimony, and a pubic hair (which was never disputed by an expert only a solicitor). Or would you have not convicted on every count?

I wasn't 100% convinced on any of the counts based on the evidence although my heart said they might have been guilty. But it was tough - I keep changing my mind all the time!

That tape - although harrowing - sounded a little suspicious on second listen too. Would a friend really quiz her pal so methodically and clinically?

I thought the acting was astonishing throughout by the way.

 

[Structaural]

I wasn't 100% convinced on any of the counts based on the evidence although my heart said they might have been guilty. But it was tough - I keep changing my mind all the time!

That tape - although harrowing - sounded a little suspicious on second listen too. Would a friend really quiz her pal so methodically and clinically?

I thought the acting was astonishing throughout by the way.

How convinced were you then? on a percentage scale?

I too thought it was superbly acted, riveting TV, and I've been changing my mind constantly.

We've seen the case, we can entertain the idea of us being jurors and having a perspective.
There is quite strong evidence there that is 'explained away' by the two person defence team. One with the use of another 'expert' who was unavailable for cross-examination and the other with the device of the defence team merely stating that the pubic hair could have a been a head hair, though the expert didn't think that was the case.

As to the tape, the girl who questioned the other girl had stated that she had an agenda, to 'find out the truth', her questions whilst seemingly methodical and clinical weren't as important as the reactions of her friend. Who was very convincing. And whose testimony is also 'evidence'.

But you're right, it is hard to come to a decision, but I felt there were more holes in the defence team who seemed to pander to a more emotional view of the case - citing 'convant girls are easy' and 'all girls would love to shag a celebrity' and whose witnesses were weak, and often, strangely, informed about facts of the case they shouldn't know. Their case was based on the girl being up for making money out the unknown experience that happened, but she'd made her money, why carry on with taking them to court? And why not keep it simple? Why even involve the other guy and a third guy?

If I had reasonable doubt - it was with the defence teams story... but it sure is a tricky one, almost perfectly constructed to allow doubt. But there was evidence and it was pretty damning in my view. I may doubt that in the morning of course.