Oh the Caf judges have spoken again. Many made up their mind before the case even went to court.
Don't really agree with the bolded part and I am not in any way trying to claim that Giggs is a decent human being because he is not. He is notoriously unfaithful which she clearly was aware of having been his mistress before she was his girlfriend and so his moral character was already known to her.
If everyone agreed it would be a boring forum, I think we can both agree that this thread is turning in to a repeat of the Mendy one though.
Yeah, it's a no brainier.
See, we can agree on the odd occasion
See, we can agree on the odd occasion
He’s not ‘almost certainly’ guilty! - what on earth are you talking about. Were you there?
And in that instance, which very rarely happens, is that they are innocent of the crime because they weren't in control of their actions, ie, they weren't conscious of their actions, hence the not guilty plea due to insanity.
No goalposts were moved: I'm saying that your assertion that the definition of not guilty is innocent is simply not true. Because it very clearly isn't.
no, in the eyes of the law he is not ‘innocent’. That is fundamentally not how the criminal justice system operates. It isn’t a means by which the ‘truth’ of something is conclusively determined. The jury is asked one question – ‘are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?’. If the jury is not sure, then they’re not guilty.
Yep, it's tough all round and there are no winners here.
You joke, but I bet a lot more people than we'd like to believe would be happy with this.
In your eyes, but in the eyes of the law, which lets be honest matter most, he is innocent.
To be fair you are correct in that in the eyes of the law he isn't strictly speaking innocent, ,but then no one is actually proven innocent in court, despite that maybe I shouldn't have said that, however as I've stated many a time in the eyes of society he is innocent, he has not been found guilty of any crime, and has no charges over his head.
You'd think they all want it to be true about Giggs
We will await Depay coming out in support of his former teammate/coach. No smoke without fire and I believe the same in the Mendy case as well. Truth is no one will ever know exactly what happened so it’s hard to judge or draw any sort of conclusion from media reporting.
Doesn't stop this forum drawing conclusions though
From what I've read it was a toxic relationship on both sides, neither of them comes out of it looking good. Perhaps why they didn't want it all being aired in public again.
Yes. I also remember reading during last year’s court hearing she wrote messages to a friend claiming “I am not leaving with nothing” basically saying she will only leave Giggs with money. When the court asked what she meant she said she meant she wouldn’t leave with nothing as she was planning to leave with her dog or something thing like that. As you say, she didn’t come across as reliable.
Yeah that only rich men have the resources to defend themselves against the seismic societal and legal double standard, ie Amber turd.
That’s because there are people on The Caf who pick a side often due to their own axe grinding reasons and won’t be swayed no matter what.
Ok Ok, let me break this down for you. Depending on where you live, but in most of the western world the law states: innocent until proven guilty. Was Giggs proven guilty? If yes, then he's guilty. If no, then he's innocent. It's the legal standard based on case law. I'll say it again for you, innocent until proven guilty. You can try and twist it in whatever way you would like, but that is how the criminal justice system works. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Have you ever been to court? I have, in both civil and criminal cases, as an expert witness. In a criminal case, its up to the prosecution to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". What that means is there is no other reasonable explanation for the case. If this were a civil case you may have a leg to stand on here as the burden of proof is only greater than 50 percent. But, criminally its very black and white, are you declared guilty? If not, your innocent. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the principle.
I admittedly know nothing about the case. I always just make the assumption (I know, I know) in these cases that there's no smoke without fire, but because there's never really much evidence anyone with a good enough attorney will get them off. OJ Simpson is always the poster boy for this. A poor person in his shoes is in jail today. I've seen in other comments exactly what your saying, so sounds like they are both terrible people.
To be clear, someone accused of a crime isn't innocent until proven guilty. They're presumed innocent until proved guilty. Presumption being the key concept of confusion in your posts.
The best test is to put put a survey and laid out the circumstances without telling people who the guy is.
Spot on.
I doubt Sir Alex was hiding under the sheets when Giggs was shagging his brothers wife.
Sir Alex is a man who risked United's future over a horse. He's a million miles from being perfect.
Because one is innocent until proven guilty
