BBC2 The Verdict: Day Two
The second day of The Verdict opens with evidence from two expert witnesses, a forensic scientist and a doctor, who explain how there is physical evidence that could point to the footballers’ guilt. The evidence from the doctor acting for the prosecution particularly concerns the defence, who move quickly to try to secure an opinion from their own doctor.
Next to take the stand is the publicist who sold Anna’s story to a national paper. He attempts to convince the jury that Anna’s best friend, Clare, approached him and secretly taped her friend not because she was interested in money, but because she wanted justice.
Damien Scott then begins giving his evidence. He completely denies the charges and strongly argues his innocence. However, like Anna yesterday who was found to have lied under oath in denying she was a virgin before the alleged rape, Damien is also found to have lied, claiming that he did not have sexual intercourse with Anna. Once incontrovertible evidence is shown to have been found that they did have sex, the jury have to decide whether this was consensual.
Tensions continue to simmer amongst the jury members with Stan Collymore, in particular, concerned that some of the other jurors aren’t taking the case seriously enough or are letting their emotions rule rather than the hard facts. Others feel he has too much baggage and is too concerned to defend the reputation of footballers. Megaman, who has already spent time in prison awaiting his trial for murder, drives home the responsibility they have, explaining how easy it is to send someone down for something they didn’t do.
Chat about this on the Unreality TV Forum »
Loading ...
Stan Collymore is an arrogant, opinionated arse! Is this show called ‘Stans verdict’ i think not! He needs to learn when to shut up and let someone else have a chance to talk. No Stan,the broken record technique will not work, no matter how many times you repeate yourself. Micheael could have done a better job at keeping him quiete when chairing the debate over dinner, but Jeffrey made some exellecent points, well done Jeffrey, i found the whole converssation extremly irrating yet, througly amusing. Well done everyone else whom manages to not kill Stan, as i do not believe i could do the same. Also good luck for the next couple of days, im sure everyone else (aside Stan) will need it (to deal with Stan)!
Wow, day 2 and Stan cops it again. Stan has an opinion and he conveys it even if he knows it may not be shared. Lets not hang him for that. I am sure that those of us on planet earth will at least once in our live encounter a Stan Collymore. Yes, could be iritating because he appears to speak louder than everyone and he also appears to talk over his colleagues but does that mean that we are entitled to ‘bash him” with all the personal insults. I sincerely hope that we earthlings would remember that in a civil society we can point to someones flaw/s without being nasty and unkind. Because the likes of Mr Archer and Mr Portillo give the appearance of stealthy calm cultured in the Houses of Parliament do not necessarily make them a superior human to Stan Collymore. There operation is so smooth that we all missed their agenda but I am sure that is the script the editors are using……. Conspiracy? I hear you say…………………………..oh well!!”!
Stan is a very strong opionated person, Yes he likes to be heard and he does raise his voice in order to do that. By slagging him off and saying hes arrogant is beyond me! I mean this is a case that will most definatly change a persons life so stan is making himself heard as he feels the importance of this. Also his past (Women Beaing) has nothing to do with this megaman was on a murder charge dont see any1 mentioning that!!!!!!
Geofrey Archer wouldn’t be on a jury as he has criminal record for doing time through greed
What about D.N.A ? Hotel cameras in the orridors, bars etc.
This program shows how different classes of people are when it comes to being a juror. I find it quite worrying. A few members laughing at the “writing a letter to a friend” is just the kind of class struggle this country has. Gentry still write letters for example whereas usual working class possibly rarely do correspond that way.
Stan is obviously defending his co footballers, i think he had made his mind up before he heard the evidence. I think their guilty, if Anna was lying i dont think she would have brought the other 2 men into it she would have just said it was Damion being the most high profile. Cant wait to hear the verdict and proove myself right!!!!
I recorded the last one of The Verdict and it cut off the very ending. The last thing I saw was when everyone was leaving court and the jury were looking very depressed. Then my recording cut off. Was there anything else after that? As the actual story was fictional, I thought they would show what happened i.e. whether the jury were right or wrong in finding them not guilty. Did they show anything like that? I thought it was a very good programme, really made me realise how hard it is to prove rape cases.