Former City Player George Glendon Rape Case (NOT GUILTY)

When held under court for rape charges the male should be able to keep his anonymity as well until the final verdict.

Not a bad idea.
The problem with that is that sometimes cases depend on or a strengthened by other victims coming forward; if the defendant is kept anonymous (male or female) then it's harder for other victims to speak up and/or be identified.

But I agree with your sentiment; for those deemed innocent it must be horrid to have had your name out there. Mud like this sticks, regardless of verdict.

One thing that did surprise me was that the jury contained nine women and three men; I would have expected the defence team to ask for a new jury to be drawn on the basis of gender imbalance, given the nature of the case. The fact that they didn't probably shows how confident they were of his innocence and in how flimsy the prosecution case was.
 
Last edited:
The problem with that is that sometimes cases depend on or a strengthened by other victims coming forward; if the defendant is kept anonymous (male or female) then it's harder for other victims to speak up and/or be identified.

But I agree with your sentiment; for those deemed innocent it must be horrid to have had your name out there. Mud like this sticks, regardless of verdict.

One thing that did surprise me was that the jury contained nine women and three men; I would have expected the defense team to ask for a new jury to be drawn on the basis of gender imbalance, given the nature of the case. The fact that they didn't probably shows how confident they were of his innocence and in how flimsy the prosecution case was.

I don't agree with that mate, if the case isn't strong enough in it's own right then it shouldn't succeed. There's plenty of time for other allegations to be brought forwards after a successful case and lumping them in together can lead to complete fuck ups like that **** in London getting out after only 8 years.
 
I thought it was tame, not enough blood, guts and suffering! Nowhere near as good as the others. 0.4/0.10.

Point of order - he was found not guilty rather than innocent.

Good news for George, I hope his career doesn't suffer for this.

Point of order please, he was always innocent, His innocence was proven today and he was given a not guilty verdict of any crime today.
 
The problem with that is that sometimes cases depend on or a strengthened by other victims coming forward; if the defendant is kept anonymous (male or female) then it's harder for other victims to speak up and/or be identified.

But I agree with your sentiment; for those deemed innocent it must be horrid to have had your name out there. Mud like this sticks, regardless of verdict.

One thing that did surprise me was that the jury contained nine women and three men; I would have expected the defence team to ask for a new jury to be drawn on the basis of gender imbalance, given the nature of the case. The fact that they didn't probably shows how confident they were of his innocence and in how flimsy the prosecution case was.

But if someone was up for burglary, the prosecution can't talk about any previous records. Its almost double standards. But i know the point
 
I don't agree with that mate, if the case isn't strong enough in it's own right then it shouldn't succeed. There's plenty of time for other allegations to be brought forwards after a successful case and lumping them in together can lead to complete fuck ups like that **** in London getting out after only 8 years.
But if someone was up for burglary, the prosecution can't talk about any previous records. Its almost double standards. But i know the point
Yes, both good points. I suppose that in some cases it works and some cases it doesn't; perhaps it's one of those things where it's not an ideal way of doing things but it's better than the alternatives - which is no consolation for the falsely accused, of course.
 
One thing that did surprise me was that the jury contained nine women and three men; I would have expected the defence team to ask for a new jury to be drawn on the basis of gender imbalance, given the nature of the case. The fact that they didn't probably shows how confident they were of his innocence and in how flimsy the prosecution case was.

I'm not at all convinced that there is any legal reason they could do that. It's simply "do you have connection with either party".
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.