The Verdict, BBC2

[mattb99]

Did anyone catch this tonight? could not see a thread already posted about this.

I was a little disappointed, not quite as interesting as I had hoped.

What do other people think?

[paulsaz]

not sure, the choice of case is crap and cliched. it has potential but tbh the dinner parties portillo used to throw with true heavyweight thinkers were more interesting than listening to collymore spout of while patsy and jen nodded vacuously.

did confirm that archer is an odious old git though.

[mattb99]

I like Jeffrey Archer personally :D although I do have to agree that Collymore was talking a little too much! think his opinion seemed to be pretty one sided, just because the issue involved a footballer.

[oblig]

Hmm I watched it but not sure what to make of it. They have to establish whether the witnesses are lying, yet we know they are acting, a bit like studying photographs of the Turin Shround to establish whether it is real methinks.

Collymore not stupid but annoying, Archer lecherous.

[ROne]

Archer comes across as a repressed sexual predator looking for tips.

Couldn't believe that question he asked the Ann Summers lady.

[smst]

I didn't watch this, but I remember Private Eye pointing out that Archer wouldn't be allowed to serve on a real jury because of his conviction. Unfortunate that they couldn't find twelve eligible jurors.

[BigH]

ok so far, but I have no doubt in my mind, that the only juror I would do is Jennifer Ellison, although I have concerns about her irritating voice.

and Archer - what a perv - more concerned about the 'victim's virginity' than anything else

and that Collymore's a bit of a cock

[davey1970]

agreed about collymore.

i would like to see more of both legal teams discussions - they were interesting and i liked how they talked about particular evidence being damaging to their case.

the nearest i can think of similar to this was medical ethics debates that used to be on tv sometimes with a panel of experts deciding how a medical case should proceed - anyone remember that?

i hate the fact this is celebrities and would have liked it to be members of the public, but the whole premise because it is not real is ultimately just a joke. dramatisation of a real case, together with background information (police investigation, legal teams work) would be far more interesting and worthwhile.

this will just end up as a not so high brow celebrity big brother.

[camaj]

How creepy is Archer? More than usual I mean? I felt he was almost pinning Jennifer Ellison against that wall!

Interesting show, Collymore needs to shut up though. I did think it might just come down to a he said/she said deal. I don't think juries should have to play "guess who's lying"

[Preacher]

Collymore's been posting on the BBC's Points of View Forum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/MP7445829

[Tony Ferrino]

Collymore's a ******. Will he ever accept that everything that was said in that courtroom is evidence too? Megaman's probably worse, but at least he shuts up for most of the time.

I don't think you can prove this case beyond reasonable doubt, so I'd have to vote NG if I was there.

I think this series has highlighted why most rape cases are so hard to convict.

[Jimmyboy]

I don't think you can prove this case beyond reasonable doubt, so I'd have to vote NG if I was there.

I think this series has highlighted why most rape cases are so hard to convict.
It has although surely there comes a point where the probability is so high that it becomes reasonable doubt?

[Tony Ferrino]

Of course....but in this case I don't think they've got to that point.

[Tony Ferrino]

It sounds like the majority of the jurors are of the same opinion as me...can't be sure, so not guilty.

[Norky]

Aaw, I thought they were going to show us what actually happened?

Seems they made the right decision though in my eyes. People were concerned they would let guilty men walk free, but if the case cannot be proven they have no choice.

[Joffy]

I was hoping they'd tell us viewers what really happened at the end.

[keithb]

I was hoping they'd tell us viewers what really happened at the end.

But what really happened is only in the mind of the writer. They could say that they wrote the piece with the mindset that she was raped or with the mindset that she wasn't.

[Jimmyboy]

Am I the only one who thought there was enough evidence to for a guilty verdict then? Seems to me that many of the women would have voted guilty but were intimidated by a uneducated man who's named himself after a super nintendo video game character and a bloke who's known for having previously assault a woman.

I couldn't understand why they couldn't hold out for the hung jury, that seemed to be the fairest option going on the evidence and general feeling they were guilty even if it can't be technically 100% proven.

[DeadYankee]

Definite intimidation and total capitulation by that effete ponce from blur. Even so, she lied under oath and that has to plant seeds of doubt

[Jimmyboy]

Definite intimidation and total capitulation by that effete ponce from blur. Even so, she lied under oath and that has to plant seeds of doubt
They all lied but her lie I feel was understandable in the circumstances. The accused told more lies and were more deceptive in nature verging on the point of taking the jury for complete idiots. The whole thing made me feel quite bad tbh for it comes across as a green light for any potential rapist watching.

[kieslowski]

Agreed - the BBC needed to give a bit more context: a woman watching this might have been put off reporting a rape.

[Tony Ferrino]

Although he was a complete and utter idiot, I think Megaman had a point in that the discussion was pretty much academic, in that I don't think either side had enough to convince the jury either way. As the law says, you have to be "sure" that the defendants did it...I wouldn't be able to say that. There was no conclusive physical evidence, and I think both sets of testimonies had points that made me question the witnesses.

All of that doesn't mean to say that she wasn't raped - to be honest I think she was (the reactions after the verdict by both her and the accused pointed that way). But the legal definition of "guilty" and "I reckon he did it" aren't the same.

Maybe a hung jury would have been the "right" result...but would a re-trial be any different? Would any other evidence come to light? Would a jury with more prejudice (either way) make a decision based on that, rather than the facts and testimony, and possibly make the wrong decision?

By the way, can I say how impressed I was by the actors. I thought they were pretty incredible, staying in character like that and being completely convincing all the way through. They should get a bit of work out of this!

[davey1970]

no - all the jobs go to people like sinbad & patsy kensit who just move between soaps Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr (sorry, slight diversion of thread lol).

[Jimmyboy]

All of that doesn't mean to say that she wasn't raped - to be honest I think she was (the reactions after the verdict by both her and the accused pointed that way). But the legal definition of "guilty" and "I reckon he did it" aren't the same.
That's why I think the law is an arse. It's a system which is draconian and rigid when there are some cases in which a degree of flexibility is required to get justice.