Reply With QuoteStill strange that his g/f stood by him and that his F-I-L said he had a job for him whenever he wanted it.
Guilty imo
...the bad news for him being that the prosecution has said they will seek an immediate retrial.
Clearly still guilty imo.
Still strange that his g/f stood by him and that his F-I-L said he had a job for him whenever he wanted it.
Guilty imo
Northern Monkey ... who can't upload a bleeding Avatar
True, but it does at least strongly suggest the matter is not so clear cut as we might have liked to believe.Originally Posted by Burney
...the bad news for him being that the prosecution has said they will seek an immediate retrial.
Clearly still guilty imo.
"A football team is a number 9 and ten other players." - redgunamo.
I don't think it was ever clear cut... drunken consent is a dangerous thing to prove/disprove
Northern Monkey ... who can't upload a bleeding Avatar
Unfamiliar as I am with the legal system I did not think a person could be tried twice on the same offence.
Clearly the grounds for appeal constitute (in the prosecution's view, at least) grounds for a retrial. In which case, yes, he can be tried again.
You don't have to tell me; I'm a married man with half-a-dozen kids.
But is it normal to re-try someone based on new evidence which would actually prove them even more guilty, rather than get them off? Wouldn't that be a waste of everyone's time?
"A football team is a number 9 and ten other players." - redgunamo.
It sounds to me as though the appeal was based on evidence that would lead to a mistrial being declared rather than on substantive evidence about the events themselves.
He got his people to lean on the jury, you mean?
"A football team is a number 9 and ten other players." - redgunamo.
More like something prejudicial may have been done or said outside court that might have meant he didn't obtain a fair trial.
Posting Permissions