this is on the BBC Verdict message board, if anyone is interested
Hi everyone,
I would like to clarify one or two things,as it seems that one or two people on this forum are judging myself( Stan Collymore) based on a stereotype rather than the words that came from my mouth during The Verdict.
Firstly,i am totally eligible to sit on a jury trial,as i have NO convictions that would preclude me from sitting on a jury,and to set the record straight,only Jeffrey Archer at present would be ineligible to sit on a jury.FACT.
It seems that many people are concerned by the way i presented myself during the discussion at dinner.I agree that i was animated,and frustrated,however our roles throughout the programme were defined by the law of the land,which are thus;
A jury MUST,i repeat must, ONLY deliver a verdict in ANY trial based on the evidence presented,and not be lead by personalities,emotions,gut feelings and the like.It is difficult to convey in a 90 minute programme(lots of the chat and debate during the day inevitably get edited out due to space) how,in my opinion,some jurors(and i am sure every day across the country) are swayed by personalities,and emotional arguments and gut feelings rather than the FACTS as presented by experts,the accuser and accused . This in my mind is where mistakes are made,and innocent people every day are incarcerated, guilty people are released without charge,and justice is not done.It is therefore common sense that the EVIDENCE and ONLY the evidence can ever be what one makes a judgement on in any court case.
If we are going to judge a serious case on anything other than straight factual evidence,as opposed to gut feelings,hunches,emotional arguments,and personality driven decisions,then why not just toss a coin,as it is the extreme end of the same wedge,and i am sure has contributed to miscarriages of justice since the beginning of time.The system as it stands i'm sure we all agree is not perfect but at least the balance in judging on evidence seems to be based on some degree of tangible,real,fact,rather than than basing a judgement on a maybe,possibly,or could have been,which left unchecked(watch some of the wild theories banded around in discussions) border often toward the ludicrous.
I feel that throughout the programme i reitereated this point (and agreed i am very vocal,although to my understanding this is not a crime),as some of my fellow jurors chopped and changed their opinions solely based on who was more convincing than the other and vice versa,rather than stick with what we were required by law to do,which was just stick to the evidence.
There is nowhere in the programme wherby i give nothing more than 100% to trying to stick to this but i'm afraid there are several people on here,who frankly if i had sat mute for the entire show would still dole out the stereotypical line that i am a mysoginist,hate women,etc etc.
I would tell you that i am a father of a 5 year old daughter,have a long standing partner,have 3 sisters,and of course a mother,so if the argument is that because of the fact that several years ago i assaulted Ulrika Jonsson (of which at the time,and ever since has been a great source of shame and regret for me)i should somehow be unsuitable for jury service i am afraid does not relate to reality,and frankly serves only to portray the same bias towards me,as some people on here are suggesting that i am showing in this case.
As for a bias towards anyone in this case,there simply isn't one.I find it quite incredible that again,some people on here have made my mind up for me,and decided that i am biased towards the defendants .WRONG.I had NO bias whatsoever towards one side or the other,which was said consistently throughout the series,and formed my individual verdict,yet it seems again that some people are very selective in what THEY CHOSE to hear,as opposed to what is exactly said.Is this in itself not bias?Also the crude notion that as i am a former footballer,that i am looking out for "my own",is deeply insulting and again in my belief is a simple,stereotypical bias.
On one site that i read,then posted on,a young woman started the post with a long tirade against a comment which she attributed to me,which said this,'Footballers don't need to rape because they can get who they want"(or words to that effect,forgive me as i don't have the exact phrase in front of me).This 5 or 6 paragraph tirade then linked the quote to a general character assasination of footballers generally.The only problem being,that i didn't make the comment in the programme.! I posted on the blog and pointed this out,to get this reply;
Fine, name may been wrong - and I will correct it. ?To be honest I don't give that much of a XXXX WHO said it, the fact is that someone did.?And that someone is, in my humble opinion, XXXXXX up.?And the fact that you actually partook in an "entertainment" programme about a rape trial hardly makes you any better in my eyes. ?Well, I hope you got enough money from it, because who cares that rape happens to women, and that only 5% of rapes end up in conviction, so long as a rape trial is "entertaining" for the viewers, huh. Sorry to tarnish your precious name, sir.??The rant wasn't so much about YOU, it was about the statement and what it meant. So, get over yourself. ?Excuse me if I sound rude or whatever, but I am not in the mood to be THAT apologetic.
I think therein lies the problem of my participation in this programme.To not give a XXXX who said it,yet attribute it to me anyway,is i think quite insightful as to some of the posts here.It doesn't matter if i make a valid argument or not.Due to the fact of having been a former footballer,having assaulted a former girlfriend,and having been exposed "dogging" are enough to invalidate any argument that i may have,so seemingly of course it would follow as a matter of course that i am a mysoginist,an apologist for ill behaving footballers ,regardless of my comments to the contrary throughout this programme,and here again on this forum.
There seems to be an all pervading myth that jurys are made up of the "great and the good,and that people who currently serve,and have served are somehow devoid of life experience,and the inherent troubles,misdemeanours and failings that to a greater or lesser extent we all have.Well sorry to disappoint but i would stick my neck out and suggest that at sometime,somewhere on some jury,that a person sitting in judgement on a trial has been involved in domestic violence,or stolen,or broken the law in some way,and that it is fanciful in the extreme to suggest otherwise because like you and i,THEY ARE HUMAN,WITH HUMAN FAILINGS.However the only pre requisite for being accepted on a jury is to not have been convicted of a crime.So the only difference between myself and the lady or gentleman who reports for jury service tomorrow,is that you know not of his/her history,yet the people on this programme,their history is there for all to see.So it is quite ironic that biases and judgements are made at the worthiness of some of the jurors(Jeffrey Archer apart),and their suitability for service on forums such as this,yet(and i again maintain my judgement was made on the evidence,not on male/female lines) the jurors in the show are somehow seen as extraordinary for bringing experience of real world situations to bear in the deliberations.
I am sure i speak for the majority of the participants in the programme,when i say that we all took the responsibility very seriously indeed,and found it very harrowing,insightful, and frightening in equal measure.In a case where 3 people's lives are at stake however and the seriousness of the allegations i am sure that everyone concerened was truly focused.
To answer the question that a token footballer with "previous" was added to the mix to add a provocative element to the programme are nonsense.I for one was told and invited to participate several months prior to filming,and no one had any idea what the subject matter would be.Therefore the trial could have been focused around any number of criminal cases.
I have no problem if you do not think i should participate in The Verdict due to my history,i respect but firmly disagree with your opinion.Also i have no problem with constructive criticism of anything i have said in the programme ,as i believe that only through forums such as this,and through communication of any kind can only stimulate debate,which surely can only be a good thing.As for me,i have in all honesty had one end in mind,which has been to listen to the evidence,and make a judgement based solely on that evidence.
It seems as though we are all discussing the legal system here where the protocol is that a person is innocent until proven guilty,and that the evidence in a case should be the only criterion whereby a verdict should be made .It seems more than ironic however in my opinion,that some posters commenting on the destructive nature of bias,seem more than happy to bring a healthy dose of their own to this board,garnished with a dash of spite....
Stan Collymore