BBC2 The Verdict: Day Three
On the third day of the trial, internationally famous footballer Damien Scott continues giving his evidence in the courtroom, followed by the hotel porter and then by Damien’s friend, James Greer.
Interviewed by the defence, the porter says that he saw the girls chatting and having fun with the footballers. However, the prosecution suggest that this is because they are regular customers and good tippers, so it is in his best interest to protect them.
The defendants deny having any contact with each other after the allegations came to light. This is something that provokes a lot of discussion amongst the jurors, with many of them finding it odd behaviour for two such long-standing friends. However, Stan thinks that if they had spoken to each other, this would have led the jury to think they have concocted their story between them.
The jury leave court exhausted, frustrated and with many unanswered questions.
Megaman is very quiet over dinner and eventually, after a fraught discussion with Ingrid Tarrant, his frustrations get the better of him and he leaves the room.
Sara Payne has also been deeply affected by what has been happening in court and relates this to her experience during the trial of her daughter’s murderer.
Stan Collymore continues to defend the footballers but some, particularly Honor Blackman, draw on their own experiences to express sympathy for Anna. However, by the end of the meal, most of the jury continue to be undecided as to whether the defendants are guilty or innocent.
Loading ...
February 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
The Verdict.
Sex for some men, in particular some professional football players and those
who are passionate about the game continuallly think in terms of a game of
football.
The rape case being enacted on BBC2 entitled ‘The Verdict’ Sunday evening
February 11th 2007, 9pm to 10 – 30 pm and through the week, high-lights the
mental attitude of many footballers and such people to sex and their disrespect
for women. A serious player trains and exercises conscientiously at least six
days a week, consequently he is very fit and strong and mentally agile. His
main aim is to score goals and win the next time he plays. This egotistical
attitude to score spills over into his sex life and it is clearly obvious that
his aggressive football skills were used to score sexually on the occasion in
question. The young lady who is of slim build obviously did not stand a chance
against even one of the men never mind the three. She must have been petrified
by their outrageous wham-bang behaviour and if a woman is not treated with
respect and feyness in a sexual encounter it tantamount to rape.
As for the defence council, she seemed to be prosecuting the the person who
claims to have been raped and that was most unjust as she had not been formally
charged with any offence and therefore should be considered innocent and treated
with respect.
If the person claiming to have been raped has sworn to tell the truth and
nothing but the truth then unless formally charged with perjury or of making
false allegations no one has the right to accuse her of lying.
In which case before the foreman of the Jewry is allowed to give a not-guilty
verdict in respect of the person/s charged with rape they must first charge the
person claiming to have been raped with perjury, otherwise by virtue of the fact
that the Jewry intend to bring in a verdict of Not-Guilty they are at the same
time convicting the person claiming to have been raped, of perjury.
Without a fair trial this is contra to British Justice, which means that the
person claiming to have been raped should be tried for Perjury before a verdict
can be given in the case of the men charged with rape. If there is no concrete
evidence against the men charged with rape it all depends on whether the person
claiming to have been raped is telling the truth or not
If however the person claiming to have been raped is cleared of perjury then a
verdict of not-guilty cannot be give in the case of the men charged with rape.
The Jewry on the rape case would have to reconsider and vote again.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
It is a disgrace that the so-called British justice barristers are allowed to withhold certain evidence which could jeopardize their prosecuton/defence.
Mis Humphrys is very reluctant to allow the jury to hear all the facts of this case. How do barristers live with their consciences intact. It takes a certain type of person to read law.
Discuss!
February 14th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Interesting programme but the jury is a motley band not at all representative of the population. I’m shocked by their lack of seriousness at times and Stan should leave his biased opinions at home. I also agree with Eleanor Lewis about the court’s freedom to choose what the jury hears - guilt or innocence seems to depend on the showmanship of the barristers - they create a show within a show and seek centre stage as much as any celebrity. Great for ‘people watching’ but how sad many of them are.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
A lot more questions should have been asked. In view of the girls having had a row, why and for how long did Claire wait for Anna?
If Claire saw that Anna was upset and distressed both that evening AND the next morning, how was it that her Parents didn’t notice or remark on her condition?
Anna didn’t notice James leave the room. Perhaps he didn’t. He could have gone to the bathroom to ‘await his turn’ with Anna. Don’t know where the third man came from.
Cannot make a judgement on what has so far been presented, Sorry. E.R.