dojj

iTrader: (3)

they reached the right one
other than the twat wtith the flat head and that annoying woman with the big tits

Chrissy_bwoy

what was the outcome? i wanted to watch it but turned off as i felt rape was not the best subject to parade on TV

RS-Leigh

iTrader: (2)

I did enjoy it....

Stan Collynore was a complete twat though, he had made is mind up before it even started, you could see he has no respect for woman by the way he spoke at them and continually tried to put them down.

Magaman!!!!! Get a fuckin real name you cock!!! He had the same attitude as Collymore.

Overall I don't think they could have made another decision, although I do believe she was raped by the second guy and maybe even the first but it was not fully proven.

Is there another show to tell you what the truth was????

Leigh

philram

iTrader: (3)

their is no truth, it was pure fiction, alot of improvising was done by the actors during the trail..

dojj

iTrader: (3)

stam and co made their desicions based on the evidence, not their emotions
so the verdict was corrrect in not guilty

RS-Leigh

iTrader: (2)

I know it was fiction mate, that ws the whole point of the show.

I thought there was going to be another show to tell you if the fictional story was that she had been raped or not. That way they would know if it was real did they make the correct decision.

Leigh

philram

iTrader: (3)

i suppose their leaving it open like it would be in real life, you would never really know what went on.

The Rapid 1

Didnt actually see it

BUT

Even IF they had used a real life case, then they could still never say if they reached a RIGHT decision, only if they reached the SAME decision as the real life one, who is to say in real life they wouldnt have mad a wrong decision, think that was the aim of the show, just to show what court and hearings were like

NO ONE would know what really happened except the people involved, all could lie and convince a jury of someones giult or innocense


Steve

dojj

iTrader: (3)

they were not prooven guilty, so they must be innocent

the tape closed the case for the defence, that was SO staged it should have been on braodway

FastFordChris

were they all acters then? i mean the lawyers/judge as well? i thought the lawyers would be real and they just took the case as they would if it had been real. i just can't see an actor takin on a rolle that lasted 6 hours a day for a week.

at stan tryin it on with the defence lawyer

dojj

iTrader: (3)

the legal team were proper legel peeps
the people who were the accused and the acussers and the witnesses were all actors
and the jury, well, some were famous, other i dind't have a fooking clue about

i've been on the website and everyone is slatting stan, but, to be honest, he was right

it was a fucking long thing to watch mind, proper tired when i went to bed

and yes, one of the defence ladies was fairly hot, but at least stan didn't go after the beardy

Neil@FastFord

Bad taste programme!!!


Usual selection of misfits and Z listers.



I dont think that rape is a topic that should be taken lightly.

One of the "celebs" was the mother of that young girl who got murdered?? WTF!!!

I remember they named a change in the law after her "Sara's law" or something?


VERY badtaste, which cunt phoned her and asked her to come on a legal-based TV programme???


These lame celeb programmes are always filled with nobodys and people with dubious claims to fame but the fact that this woman is know to the public because her daughter got murdered is pretty sick IMO!

dojj

iTrader: (3)

but i think thats what so good about her being on there
sure she got all emotional and sure she may have used her daughter to pull a few heart strings with the jury, but she came to the right discion, along with most of th eother
there was no evidence to make those 2 guys guilty, no matter how she felt (even when she was sick)

all through the show i was thinking "she went and spread her legs there to kiss and tell" then i was thinking "perhaps she was just drunk and they took advantage of her" which then went to "fuck me, they 3somed her, thats a bit more than naughty" to "the lying bitch, bet she's a right slapper of a dirty bird" before thinking "you twat of a porter, you have just dropped yourself right in it haven't you sonny jim" and finaly "well said megaman, tell that tape player what you think, you twat, you should be saying that to the judge, but you won't because he'll lock your arse away again but fair play, that tape WAS bullshit how did she expect to make the recording and get away with it if her mate wasn't in on the scam in the first place?"

FastFordChris

it may be true that its in bad taste but at the end of the day the case had to have some eliment of interest or no one would of watched it.

it wasn't done in a big brother style format it was simply showing how a court case works and how a jury comes to their conclusion. which was interesting from that stand point.

adding some celebs in was just a way of gaining interest, thats how entertainment works and in order for it to compete with other programs they have to stoop to that level.

no one forced the celebs to do the show, and the mother of the girl who was murdered said herself she wanted to experiance how a jury come a conclusion in a such as this.

Phil79

I think it was absolutely brilliant.

Working in the legal profession myself, I was screaming at the TV at certain points

Deffinately the correct verdict though. The decision was made on the available evidence, not peoples assumptions. Although, in my mind, if it was real life, she was raped.

Did you see the way the skipped out of court, laughing their heads off.

dojj

iTrader: (3)

there was no skipping, but i know what you mean

it was somethng i'd look forward to participating in myself should th eopportunity arise and, the one good thing that actually was said about it was the fact that, from the outside, they would have dug up the dirt on the bird to see if she was a proper slapper or not
but you woldn'thave had this info until after the case, when it would have been too late to change the verdict

it's an eye opening experience and i'm sure it would work again n a years time, assuming everyone was, again, a "celebrity" with some "experience" in the dock

S1rst

To be fair, just because they were not proven guilty doesnt mean they didnt do it though. I couldnt be sure whether they did it or not, but the job of the jury is to make a desicion based on the evidence provided, so i had to say not guilty as the evidence was not strong at all.

I suppose its so hard to prove a case like this though, but i cant see how anyone could be 100% sure they were guilty based on the evidence they provided. And for archer to change his decision at the end proves to me that he wasnt sure in the first place so should have said not guilty to start with in my opinion.

S1rst

And at the end of the day, the tape did sound staged, but dont forget that is WAS staged as they were acting anyway.

dojj

iTrader: (3)

but thats the point
they hsould have been able to act properly and be convincing
you might as well have been at madam tussards listening to one of the dummys, the difference between what they were like in the dock and what they were like on the tape was unreal
and as for the jury buying the "well, i made the tape so that i could flog i to the highest bidder an tmy mate didn't know she was being tapped" malarky

as i've said before, she's probably been up for a bit of naughtyness but when the second guy came onto her who she didn't know she pinned it on the scottish fella
his bad luck was that he got one of her pubes stuck in his pants

on th eother hand, how many footballers get away with this sort of thing?

timrud

Or how many footballers get targetted?

TBH I didn't watch any of it, but as I work in the legal game too, it was something I did want to catch an eye on, but I've always been out.

I thought it would be crap, but sounds like it wasn't?

I'd of chosen a murder, NOT a rape. But I can see why they picked it. 99.9% of the public just do not understand what goes into a verdict. Often they think its police/cps/courts fault, when its not. Rape is the most underconvicted offence there is (IMO), but that is for a number of reasons, none of which are down to the people who work hard everyday to keep the justice system moving.

dojj

iTrader: (3)

there must be someone from the legal proffesion who watched it and can give a view on how thngs were done
there were glarring errors that we could see on the telly but they did or didn't pick up on

the girl gave a good go at it and had everyone convinced everyone that she'd been gang raped by 3 guys
but there were only 2 guys in the dock, and one of them said he didn't bum her as she was accusing him of
she also, by implication, accused the porter of being the 3rd person but the case was so flawed you could have no way put them away
i don't think anyone other than megaman wasn't moved by that testimony, but then the defence had a go and she lied on the stand
if this is the case how does that compare to the case? if she's comited purjury doesn't she get told off or jailed or fined or soemthing?

it was fascinating viewing and it probably was the best case to trial by tv, no evidence just the word of the people who were or wern't there

i think someone also mentioned the point that just because they felt sorry for her, was that a valid enough reason to find them guilty with no evidence (i think it was stan but i don't know who he as tlaking to, that twat woman who found them guilty of the first 2 but not of the 3rd and 4th (rape by the first guy, rape by the second guy and then conseted to being bummed by them both or soemthing, i mean, wtf was she thinking about? )

it's almost like saying that you didn't agree to have your hands chopped off, but then you did agree to having your arms cut off
mind bogglingy dumb bint, who should have never been ther ein the first place as she didn't have a fooking clue

timrud

Was there a No Case to Answer submission made at half time?

Wished I'd watched it now

Yes, lying on oath is very serious, and Perjury charges would follow.

They tryed to do my mate once, as he has two jobs, tryed to produce insurace to drive from one, and brought an exceptional hardship letter from his other employer. Needless to say, after they arrested him at 8am on a Sunday morning, he never got charged

S1rst

I thought that aswell. And to think she's one of the richest and most successful business women in the country!!!

dojj

iTrader: (3)

they were throwing the book at them and, if i remember correctly, the charges were along the lines of:
rape by the first guy
anal rape by the second guy
rape (again) by the first guy
rape by the both of them
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/eta/#verdict
and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/programm...evidence.shtml
should give you an idea of what wnet on
you can see the whole show again as well, but be warned, it's 6 hours long in total and bit intense as well

you might also see the totaly thick jaquiline gold making her point that they were both guilty of counts 1 and 2 but innocent of counts 3 and 4 dumb bint

dojj

iTrader: (3)

it must be the to braincells in her cleveage then it was as if she was going to find them guilty just because she felt gilty about what it owuld do the the girl who was accusing them
and when stan and megaman protested, and rightly so, they were called bullys
read the point of view website on bbc2 and see that most of the country have made the same sort of dicision

it's like seeing a tyre deflated on your car and then finding a nail when you take it to the tyre place and then accusing the tyre fitter of putting it there because you want to blame someone

timrud

The ONLY way the anal bloke could be convicted is if there is his (and only his) DNA up her bum.

If both where there, they technically could say one put his sperm on the others nob and he stuck it up her. If the other then says the exact same, its down to the jury to decide who. But then how can they be sure beyond reasonable doubt, when its one bloke of questionalble character, versus another? Ofc ourse the jury could then be put the point they both bummed her? But if shes already said that didn't happen, then they can't take that route.

Are they going to do another on a different topic, thats not such a nest of worms?

dojj

iTrader: (3)

the only evidence was a hair from her on the back of the second guys boxers and a tear in her bum

he said that he didn't have a change of clothes and he went to knock for his mate the next day and sat on his bed watching telly while he showered up before they went out

the tear in her bum might have been from somethng else but she did wait days before telling the police, and her mate had already made a recording of her telling her what happened (this bit was the coached bit that everyone is on baout) where she said she was going to flog it to the higest bidder

the liar part was that she told her docrot that she was a virgin before the rape but then later when questionsed admited that she wasn't

the whole story is so full of holes there could have been no other outcome than not guilty on all counts

as you say, a nest of worms this one surely was

timrud

This case sounds like it had more holes in it that a bit of swiss cheese.

Seriously at work, if that file came in as an advice file, it would of got lobbed out of the window before it got anywhere near court

S1rst

Exactly, and there were still people prepared to give a guilty verdict.

Everyones slagging collymore and megaman for saying it how it was, but they were 100% right it what they were saying in my opinion.

I think for anyone to give a guilty verdict in that is just plain thick.

timrud

They should do a passionford version, with us lot in it