ChatterBank0 min ago
The Verdict
12 Answers
Just finished watching this on BBC2 and i thought they might show/tell us what actually happened. How do we know if the Jury made the right decision?
Thanks
Thanks
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sair5412. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
not sure I get your drift...they found them not guilty..and that's it!
what would have been your verdict?
that was the whole point of the show (?), try and put yourself on that jury.
I have sat on a few juries, some were made up of quite sensible rational people, others were just there for the time off work. I thoroughly enjoyed this drama, wish there were more in the pipeline.
what would have been your verdict?
that was the whole point of the show (?), try and put yourself on that jury.
I have sat on a few juries, some were made up of quite sensible rational people, others were just there for the time off work. I thoroughly enjoyed this drama, wish there were more in the pipeline.
it was good, i enjoyed it too.
I saw one a month or so ago and it was the same set up. Fictionalised, using actors giving evidence but members of the public (non actors) were the jury. They found this bloke not guilty of rape and at the very end of the programme, they showed a sort of "flashback" and the girl was being raped by the bloke. So, we got the jury's verdict, but we also got the truth too. It just opened your mind to how well some people can tell lies.
I saw one a month or so ago and it was the same set up. Fictionalised, using actors giving evidence but members of the public (non actors) were the jury. They found this bloke not guilty of rape and at the very end of the programme, they showed a sort of "flashback" and the girl was being raped by the bloke. So, we got the jury's verdict, but we also got the truth too. It just opened your mind to how well some people can tell lies.
I wonder when the BBC are going to broadcast the trial the trial that the 12 celebrity jurors were hearing as it certainly wasn't the one that I have spent the last 4 evenings watching! I mean how much more evidence did they want. It was as plain as the nose on your face that those guys were guilty. I was really annoyed that a lot of the jurors thought they were guilty but then wimped out when it came to the verdict. I mean surely if they had come to the conclusion that she was raped, they could only have come to that conclusion after hearing all the evidence; so if they believed she was raped then they had to vote guilty! Jeffrey Archer's change of vote was unbelievable and as for "Megaman", I can only assume that the "mega" part refers to the size of the massive chip on his shoulder!
I thought that they were going to show us whether the jury made the right decision at the end too.
I think they were GUILTY anyway.
It wasn't very correct though as I don't think they would allow anyone on to a jury that has been convicted of crimes. Stan Collymore was too prejudice because he used to be a footballer and I got really fed up of him shouting the other jurors down, especially Jacqueline Gold - who he seemed to have it in for from the start - I thought she was making some valid points and she was the only one who was listening to the evidence.
I think they were GUILTY anyway.
It wasn't very correct though as I don't think they would allow anyone on to a jury that has been convicted of crimes. Stan Collymore was too prejudice because he used to be a footballer and I got really fed up of him shouting the other jurors down, especially Jacqueline Gold - who he seemed to have it in for from the start - I thought she was making some valid points and she was the only one who was listening to the evidence.
Let me begin by expressing my deep felt belief that Stan Collymore is a patronising twonk.
The wife and I had this discussion last night. I think that had they demonstrated the verdict was right or wrong by showing �how it actually happened� then this would have debased the whole legal process. As mentioned above, you might have a sense of injustice when you sit on a jury, which I have done, but if you are not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty then you cannot pronounce a guilty verdict (which Stan decided to tell everyone 2,000 times). The fact that Meagreman seemed to have made his mind up on day 1 was quite alarming.
I didn�t watch the whole thing but whatever decision they came to, if there was something in the evidence that they could conclude that this was a crime as charged, carried out by the defendant against the plaintive in the manner described then they made the wrong decision. In the event they made the right decisions and should there be any apportionment of blame of injustice this would lie with the ineffectiveness and clarity of the prosecutions case.
The wife and I had this discussion last night. I think that had they demonstrated the verdict was right or wrong by showing �how it actually happened� then this would have debased the whole legal process. As mentioned above, you might have a sense of injustice when you sit on a jury, which I have done, but if you are not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty then you cannot pronounce a guilty verdict (which Stan decided to tell everyone 2,000 times). The fact that Meagreman seemed to have made his mind up on day 1 was quite alarming.
I didn�t watch the whole thing but whatever decision they came to, if there was something in the evidence that they could conclude that this was a crime as charged, carried out by the defendant against the plaintive in the manner described then they made the wrong decision. In the event they made the right decisions and should there be any apportionment of blame of injustice this would lie with the ineffectiveness and clarity of the prosecutions case.
1 to 12 of 12
