Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News14 mins ago
Duckinfield Jury Unable To Agree On Verdict
49 Answers
https:/
Not surprised. The CPS have asked for a retrial. Hopefully they won’t succeed, to pursue this serves nobody.
Not surprised. The CPS have asked for a retrial. Hopefully they won’t succeed, to pursue this serves nobody.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. 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.
Apologies for the misunderstanding, Aggie. Indeed I may well have come to a different conclusion had I been a jury member. My conclusion was based on the little I had read and the difficulties I know that exist when prosecuting a Manslaughter Gross Negligence charge. I have to say that it would need very strong evidence for me to convict. As I have explained, I see it as a very big leap from somebody making a mistake or being negligent, to convicting them of a serious criminal offence.
“Is it not a straightforward matter of putting it to another 12 people who may be able to reach a majority/unanimous verdict?”
Yes it is. Though either side can choose to change the way they present their case of the evidence they choose to present.
“Just curious and do you think the passage of time was a significant factor in this case?”
There is an adage which says “Justice delayed is Justice denied”. It’s very true. However, where excessive delays occur, such as in this case, there’s more to it than that. Both parties (the bereaved and the accused) have endured more than 30 years of uncertainty. The business had not been concluded for all that time. As well as this, especially where verbal “eye witness” evidence is involved, it is inevitable that memories – however vivid initially – fade over time and they fade excessively over excessively long periods. You often hear people say “I can remember it as though it was yesterday”. Well anybody who has listened to evidence being given in a court will tell you that invariably they can’t. However traumatic the experience, memories of detail (very important in criminal cases) fade with time.
My view that the CPS should think again before requesting a retrial is based on the excessive periods of uncertainty both the bereaved and the accused have endured. I’m sure it’s been easier for Mr Duckenfield than it has for the bereaved but both are entitled to consideration in that respect. Nobody knows how the jury was split. It could have been 9-3 for acquittal, 9-3 for conviction or anything in between. Neither side can assume they were just a whisker away from success. My view is that it is time to put the matter to bed.
“Is it not a straightforward matter of putting it to another 12 people who may be able to reach a majority/unanimous verdict?”
Yes it is. Though either side can choose to change the way they present their case of the evidence they choose to present.
“Just curious and do you think the passage of time was a significant factor in this case?”
There is an adage which says “Justice delayed is Justice denied”. It’s very true. However, where excessive delays occur, such as in this case, there’s more to it than that. Both parties (the bereaved and the accused) have endured more than 30 years of uncertainty. The business had not been concluded for all that time. As well as this, especially where verbal “eye witness” evidence is involved, it is inevitable that memories – however vivid initially – fade over time and they fade excessively over excessively long periods. You often hear people say “I can remember it as though it was yesterday”. Well anybody who has listened to evidence being given in a court will tell you that invariably they can’t. However traumatic the experience, memories of detail (very important in criminal cases) fade with time.
My view that the CPS should think again before requesting a retrial is based on the excessive periods of uncertainty both the bereaved and the accused have endured. I’m sure it’s been easier for Mr Duckenfield than it has for the bereaved but both are entitled to consideration in that respect. Nobody knows how the jury was split. It could have been 9-3 for acquittal, 9-3 for conviction or anything in between. Neither side can assume they were just a whisker away from success. My view is that it is time to put the matter to bed.
"Irrespective of the trial situation,I don't suppose he ever sleeps comfortably." - so you think he feels some responsibility? He's guilty of nothing more than trying to sort out a situation forced on him by ticketless "fans", yes errors were made but that's not grounds for this ridiculous charade. If they want to convict him fill the jury with people from Liverpool then we can all get on with the HDQ of a scape goat. Now....Soldier F...!
//so you think he feels some responsibility? //
3T,he has admitted that he made mistakes.The question for the jury was to consider whether this translated into being 'guilty' of the charge brought against him.The jury couldn't decide.
As to sleepless nights,he is human.I am sure he has relived the events countless times.It will never leave him.
His career ended early although some suggested for financial gain.
3T,he has admitted that he made mistakes.The question for the jury was to consider whether this translated into being 'guilty' of the charge brought against him.The jury couldn't decide.
As to sleepless nights,he is human.I am sure he has relived the events countless times.It will never leave him.
His career ended early although some suggested for financial gain.
//so why are you happy to blame one man trying to sort the problem on the day?//
3T,If you read all my posts I have not sort to blame one man.Don't forget,another man was charged and convicted of a different offence relating to the stadium itself.
Mr Duckenfield had already admitted certain points I have raised regarding some of his decision making.
I have never said he was guilty of the charge laid before him.
As NJ has said,it is possible to make critical errors but that doesn't mean he is guilty because of the test that is applied.
3T,If you read all my posts I have not sort to blame one man.Don't forget,another man was charged and convicted of a different offence relating to the stadium itself.
Mr Duckenfield had already admitted certain points I have raised regarding some of his decision making.
I have never said he was guilty of the charge laid before him.
As NJ has said,it is possible to make critical errors but that doesn't mean he is guilty because of the test that is applied.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV27 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles39 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles64 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles70 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles84 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.