DLT...am feeling really sorry for him now.

[Buzzer]

I don't agree. We are talking about criminal cases here, not the civil court.

Agreed - and it would open the door to defence lawyers fees going through the roof. Take DLT's case for instance. He's been accused of a very serious offence(s) so it might make sense for DLT to instruct the costliest no-expense-spared defence team that money can find on the basis that if he wins then the State pays and if he loses he'll be in prison anyway with no income so might as well declare himself bankrupt.

The current system isn't perfect but I don't think we should go down the route of successful defences being paid for by the state.

 

[downham seagull]

Responding to Drew

How? Easy I just have! The jury were allowed to reach majority verdicts and seeing that the evidence is one persons word against another a can't see the majority of Jury members coming to the conclusion he is innocent on 12 of the charges then coming to the conclusion that he is guilty on the other 2. I would suspect that it was very few. Is it not allowed to second guess the jury ? If so I apologise.

 

[trueblue]

But if you're wrongly accused of something, why should you have to meet the cost of clearing your name?

 

[Blues Rock DJ]

to be fair, if it was Joe Blogs, school caretaker, there wouldn't be all this fuss !

 

[drew]

How? Easy I just have! The jury were allowed to reach majority verdicts and seeing that the evidence is one persons word against another a can't see the majority of Jury members coming to the conclusion he is innocent on 12 of the charges then coming to the conclusion that he is guilty on the other 2. I would suspect that it was very few. Is it not allowed to second guess the jury ? If so I apologise.

I hear what you are saying but were you in court to hear all the evidence on all the cases. It could equally be that the evidence on the cases on which he was found not guilty was flimsy but that the other two cases there was more to it but some jurors were swayed by the other ten. I'm just saying that your comments were just total speculation. If not, why do you get cases where some charges a defendent is found guilty and others not!

 

[drew]

But if you're wrongly accused of something, why should you have to meet the cost of clearing your name?

How do you arrive at that conclusion? How did you deduce that he was wrongly accused? Just because a jury were not convinced beyond reasonably doubt doesn't mean something didn't happen. There was at least 1 juror that was convinced.

 

[trueblue]

How do you arrive at that conclusion? How did you deduce that he was wrongly accused? Just because a jury were not convinced beyond reasonably doubt doesn't mean something didn't happen. There was at least 1 juror that was convinced.

I deduced that he was wrongly accused because a jury found him Not Guilty. End of story.

 

[User removed 4]

does seem a bit of a broken system where you are bankrupted to defend yourself. but then can we expect the tax payer to pick up every case regardless of person wealth? difficult.

Yes we should if found not guilty.

 

[drew]

I deduced that he was wrongly accused because a jury found him Not Guilty. End of story.

Then you are a complete tool. Firstly, it's not end of story because he is going to retrial. Secondly, the only people that know whether he is guilty or innocent are DLT himself, each of the victims and possibly, any witness who was with the victim at the time of the alleged assaults (that is if the victim says they were assaulted at a certain time but a different person was with them at that time then that person would know for that alleged incident the victim was not telling the truth).

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Then you are a complete tool. Firstly, it's not end of story because he is going to retrial. Secondly, the only people that know whether he is guilty or innocent are DLT himself, each of the victims and possibly, any witness who was with the victim at the time of the alleged assaults (that is if the victim says they were assaulted at a certain time but a different person was with them at that time then that person would know for that alleged incident the victim was not telling the truth).

The jury found Redknapp innocent are they fools too ?

 

[drew]

The jury found Redknapp innocent are they fools too ?

You can express your own opinion on that. However, I'm intrigued as to why you think juries are infallible. Have you never heard of any miscarriage of justice?

Besides, I never said the jury were fools, perhaps you should learn to read!

 

[trueblue]

Then you are a complete tool. Firstly, it's not end of story because he is going to retrial. Secondly, the only people that know whether he is guilty or innocent are DLT himself, each of the victims and possibly, any witness who was with the victim at the time of the alleged assaults (that is if the victim says they were assaulted at a certain time but a different person was with them at that time then that person would know for that alleged incident the victim was not telling the truth).

The whole point of the legal system is to determine innocence or guilt. At this moment, DLT has not been proven guilty of anything so he is an innocent man.

Don't mind being a 'tool' - at least they're useful. Better than being a waste of oxygen.

 

[downham seagull]

I hear what you are saying but were you in court to hear all the evidence on all the cases. It could equally be that the evidence on the cases on which he was found not guilty was flimsy but that the other two cases there was more to it but some jurors were swayed by the other ten. I'm just saying that your comments were just total speculation. If not, why do you get cases where some charges a defendent is found guilty and others not!

Totally agree its just my opinion and the CPS have had all the available evidence heard in court once and yes 2 counts were undecided but still think on the whole, the majority on the jury were on the not guilty side as a lay person observing. Maybe when the 2 counts are heard in isolation then we will get another verdict.We will all have to wait and see.

 

[drew]

I deduced that he was wrongly accused because a jury found him Not Guilty. End of story.

The whole point of the legal system is to determine innocence or guilt. At this moment, DLT has not been proven guilty of anything so he is an innocent man.

Don't mind being a 'tool' - at least they're useful. Better than being a waste of oxygen.

The jury's decision was not unanimous which suggest that some thought he was guilty. Legally he is innocent but you are still a tool as you can't see beyond the verdict. He may be innocent or he may be guilty, I don't know because I wasn't there, I assume you weren't and neither was the Jury. They heard two versions of events and decided they weren't convinced one way or another and on that basis could not find him guilty.

 

[vegster]

Are the police and CPS trying to bankrupt him. Already lost one house and now more exorbitant fees to find.
Those who make the accusations get their fees covered by us. Should be some form of redress if he is found not guilty again..

At least he hasn't gone to Hull tonight.

 

[trueblue]

The jury's decision was not unanimous which suggest that some thought he was guilty. Legally he is innocent but you are still a tool as you can't see beyond the verdict. He may be innocent or he may be guilty, I don't know because I wasn't there, I assume you weren't and neither was the Jury. They heard two versions of events and decided they weren't convinced one way or another and on that basis could not find him guilty.

In which case he is currently innocent. Not too difficult to understand.

 

[drew]

In which case he is currently innocent. Not too difficult to understand.

 

[trueblue]

They found him not guilty on 12 counts. He's being retried on 2 on which they failed to reach a decision. Thank goodness most juries appear to consist of people more open minded than you who actually can grasp the concept of 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'.

 

[drew]

They found him not guilty on 12 counts. He's being retried on 2 on which they failed to reach a decision. Thank goodness most juries appear to consist of people more open minded than you who actually can grasp the concept of 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'.

Once again you prove how stupid you are. I fully understand that concept but you haven't a clue about the concept of beyond reasonable doubt or even on the balance of probabilities (relating to civil law). Have you served on a jury? I have. On one case we felt something may have happened but just not enough evidence presented by CPS to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt (although one juror was) and in another case, we went the other way with only one of the 12 not being convinced.

It might help people like you if we had something similar to the Scottish system whereby verdicts are Guilty, Not Guilty or Not Proven.

 

[trueblue]

As a journalist I know all about 'beyond reasonable doubt' and 'the balance of probabilities'. More than you learn from one stint on a jury. I also understand the libel laws and the principle of not accusing an innocent man of being guilty.