His ex no longer wanted to give evidence at a retrial. Without her testimony then no chance of a prosecution.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Giggs Gone...
- Thread starter vegster
- Start date
A quote from the BBC report
He said Kate Greville had "indicated an unwillingness" to give evidence in a retrial as giving evidence in the first one had "taken its toll" on her and her sister.
Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo
I believe in Joe Hendry
- Oct 4, 2003
- 12,091
Sounds like the ex isn’t willing to go through another trial saying the first trial took its toll on her. Without her evidence there was no realistic chance of getting a conviction so the CPS had no choice but to abandon the trial.
crodonilson
He/Him
Paves the way for his return to the Welsh job.
Lenny Rider
Well-known member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 6,019
Not so sure.
Its not an acquittal, unfortunately he’s also been tried in the court of public opinion, with Womens football in a strong position both in the UK and globally, I can’t see the FAW having him back given the original charges, whether proved or otherwise.
Edit: my talking nonsense now deleted.
My WTF was mainly about how Giggs' career is now over, on the face of it for no fault of his. Regardless of what a prick we may consider he is (I do), is this justice?
A comment like that makes me think 'did I start this thread or was it Crodri*?'
*Welsh for Crodo
spongy
Well-known member
No it's not acquittal, according to law there is no case to answer, but people's knowledge of what happens in public celebrity scandals the damage to their PR, ie, Schofield, Huw, Mason Greenwood, Mendy, Marlon King,(Palace still sing that song at Lewis) etc regardless of what actually happened doesn't really matter.
The stigma is buried and they're guilty in the public eye.
It's up the court to prove guilt by law, not the defendant to prove innocence by law.
Any doubt and it should be not guilty or no case to answer by law but public perception is another thing entirely.
Bit puzzled by your comment 'for no fault of his'?
Case dismissed. All that's left is tabloid huff and puff. He hasn't been found guilty. Not guilty.
So losing his job is not his fault.
And I concede that he may well otherwise be a prize piece of work.. And probably guilty as hell. But that's just my prejudice.
Legally he has not be found guilty but that doesn't mean he didn't do what he is alleged to have done. OJ was found legally not guilty in a criminal court but guilty in a civil court. I'm not saying he definitely did it but I wouldn't be as keen as you just to dismiss the allegations.
Not dismissing.
But he is still 'not guilty' in law.
Lynch mobs are of course understandable,
It is all over. No case to answer. Boy oh boy - that's sure as hell going to upset some!
Lenny Rider
Well-known member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 6,019
Deleted
Last edited:
I get what you are saying. But in some cases information is in the public domain. Whilst Greenwood was not guilty of crime for which he was charged.....the evidence in the public domain shows he is a very undesirable individual.
severnside gull
Well-known member
Ditto Giggs
Ditto Mendy
Understandable general public make up own minds when only reason case dismissed is because main witness would not give evidence. Certainly must be mighty hard for females to go through this and hard to get prosecution. Proof of that was Greenwood case when there was video evidence
Video evidence? In which case the the prosecution could have gone ahead without the co-operation of the intimidated witnesses, surely?. I haven't seen the evidence. Was it film of a sexual assault?
I simply cannot bring myself to condemn someone as guilty in my own mind when the case doesn't even go to court. It doesn't seem right.
Consider Dave Jones.
"In June 1999 Jones was formally questioned by police over alleged sexual abuse at St George's School in Formby, Merseyside, a home for children with educational and behavioural problems, where he had been employed as a care worker from 1986 to 1990.[28] After voluntarily attending the police station, he was arrested then questioned, before being released on bail without charge.[29]
He was subsequently charged on 27 September with nine offences against young boys of indecent assault and child cruelty. He denied all the allegations and stated he was "confident that [his] innocence will be established in due course".[29] He appeared before Merseyside Magistrates Court on 2 November 1999 where he formally pleaded not guilty to all charges and was granted bail.[30]
The case reached Liverpool Crown Court in December 2000, by which time Jones had left Southampton. He stood trial on an eventual 21 charges, which was swiftly reduced to 14 after two other alleged victims pulled out of proceedings on the eve of the trial.[28] After a further alleged victim declined to appear or refused to give evidence, the Judge directed the jury during the fourth day of proceedings to return a formal not guilty verdict on four charges relating to the absent party.[28] After decreeing a retrial would not be "just" on the remaining charges, the Judge recorded not guilty verdicts on the remaining ten charges.[4] Jones left cleared of all allegations and was told by the Judge: "No wrongdoing whatsoever on your part has been established".
One of the key "victims" was later found to have fabricated their claim of abuse in Jones' and other cases brought from Operation Care – the police investigation into child abuse – to win compensation.[31] Jones himself later spoke bitterly of the handling of the case and claimed it was the cause of his father's death, who had died shortly after the allegations became public.[2]
Jones speaks in more detail about the case in his autobiography, "No Smoke, No Fire" published in June 2009."
This is different from, for example OJ Simpson who was acquitted by a gormless jury.
without victim co-operation it’s very difficult. You’d then factor is it worthy of the effort if it won’t get to court or through a trial.
In Giggs case trying to prove ‘coercive behaviour’ is difficult enough, let alone without a victim going through a second trial
Just because it doesn’t make it through a trial doesn’t mean it isn’t true
I appreciate that. But I'm a scientist. If something cannot be tested whether it is true or not I can't simply assume that it is true. Likewise, if something cannot be tested it seems pointless to have a hypothesis that it is true, unless it is pivotally important to do so, determining consequential behaviour. In the present case, assuming it to be true would lead to nobody ever giving the man a job that involves dealing with people again. Perhaps that's the right outcome.
But I am also autistic, so I struggle with the above. If I start down the road of believing what suits me I'd be in serious trouble, down there with conspiracy theorists, tin foil hat-wearers etc. I also appreciate that if you are at the other end of the spectrum then you may be able to 'believe' all sorts, not let it affect you or trigger a cascade of other loosely related inferences. I should write a book on all this
