wildebus
Full Member
- Messages
- 7,483
On ITV for last 3 nights. Dramatisation of the appearance of Major Charles Ingram on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" in September 2001.
Very Entertaining I thought and I have to say that if I were in the jury and the evidence was as portrayed in the Court Scene in the last episode, I would not have voted Guilty!
Reckon I would have definately had my suspicions, but case (as portrayed on the show, again) was definately not one that was 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt'.
Maybe in a Scottish Court, a "Not Proven" vote might have been in order (if that still exists in Scottish Law?).
What does the Motorhomer Jury say? Now is the chance to have your vote (and to post your arguments for one way or the other. Remember, can't use info that might have been revealed years after the trial. Not how Juries work
)
And only the two verdicts allowed as it was tried in a London (English) Court with just one charge presented.
Very Entertaining I thought and I have to say that if I were in the jury and the evidence was as portrayed in the Court Scene in the last episode, I would not have voted Guilty!
Reckon I would have definately had my suspicions, but case (as portrayed on the show, again) was definately not one that was 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt'.
Maybe in a Scottish Court, a "Not Proven" vote might have been in order (if that still exists in Scottish Law?).
What does the Motorhomer Jury say? Now is the chance to have your vote (and to post your arguments for one way or the other. Remember, can't use info that might have been revealed years after the trial. Not how Juries work
)And only the two verdicts allowed as it was tried in a London (English) Court with just one charge presented.
Last edited:
