Jack Diamond on Piers Morgan tonight

Frank_1976 said:
I assume this will be aired with the clarification that whilst false accusations can end up ruining careers, failing to act or support genuine victims is equally as damaging. I assume wor Piers will acknowledge both sides of the debate

Not to stir the pot or anything but being acquitted or found not guilty doesn't imply innocence, simply the absence of guilt with respect to the evidence presented
Click to expand...
Is it the same the other way around too?
 


Turner the Cat said:
As others have said - being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent. Sometimes the conclusion is simply that there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt but thats not the same as concluding they are therefore innocent. Often in rape it is very difficult to conclude what happened because it is one persons word against another.

I don't know the details of the evidence but given it took 7 mins to find him not guilty, it is probably safe to infer that he is innocent.

A possible good example is the Jon Terry racist case regarding Anton Ferdinand for those who remember. Jon Terry was charged by the Crown Prosecution but acquitted. That is not to say that they found him innocent but that they could not prove to a sufficient degree under law that he was guilty. At the same time the FA charged him and using a lower threshold for burden of proof found him guilty.
Click to expand...
This is the difference between “beyond a reasonable doubt” which is the threshold required in criminal cases and “on the balance of probabilities” required in civil cases.
 
Stevo22 said:
None of what you listed is evidence - circumstantial or otherwise and it has nothing to do with feminism or left-leaning prejudice. Nobody is tainting him or saying he did it. She claimed something happened but can't prove it did. He claims it didn't happen and he can't prove it didn't either. The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation so naturally he was acquitted. This is not confirmation that it didn't. Again, nobody is tainting him but nobody apart from the two people involved know for certain what happened.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what legal hyperbole people use - Jack Diamond clearly convinced the jury that he is innocent. Justice has been served!
tunstallhill said:
Can you point to a single person who is seeking to taint him?
Click to expand...
You said he is been ‘used’ by Piers Morgan as if he is some thickness who can’t think for himself. That’s tainting him!

All because you don’t like the politics of Piers Morgan - like I said, prejudice is influencing peoples views.
 
Last edited:
Birtley Lad said:
I’m also of the opinion that people with far left leanings and/or extreme feminist views will seek to taint him whether he was found guilty or non guilty. That’s simply their prejudice!
Click to expand...

And yet the only people I've ever seen perpetually trying to taint people when it comes to rape is the likes of the monumentally right wing Yaxley and his/their thoughts on all Muslims
 
Nathan Gunn said:
Personally don’t think it’s wise him doing this. He’s finally got the chance to draw a line under what’s obviously been a really rough time for him. Just keep your head down and get on with being a footballer. Don’t understand the need for this at all personally
Click to expand...
A footballer being accused of rape is front page news. A footballer being cleared of rape is not.

He was first item on Look North every day of his trial. When found not guilty he was not.

Even on this thread there are examples of poster who know Ched Evans was convicted of rape, bit not that his conviction was later overturned.

If this is the only way his aquittal gets the same level of attention as his prosecution, I can very much understand why he is doing it.
 
Birtley Lad said:
Regardless of what legal hyperbole people use - Jack Diamond clearly convinced the jury that he is innocent. Justice has been served!

You said he is been ‘used’ by Piers Morgan as if he is some thickness who can’t think for himself. That’s tainting him!

All because you don’t like the politics of Piers Morgan - like I said, prejudice is influencing peoples views.
Click to expand...
No - the prosecution failed to prove to the jury that he is guilty - that is different to what you are claiming.

And it's not legal hyperbole, it's just the fundamental basics of our legal system and actually should be very easy to grasp.
 
NYMackem said:
A footballer being accused of rape is front page news. A footballer being cleared of rape is not.

He was first item on Look North every day of his trial. When found not guilty he was not.

Even on this thread there are examples of poster who know Ched Evans was convicted of rape, bit not that his conviction was later overturned.

If this is the only way his aquittal gets the same level of attention as his prosecution, I can very much understand why he is doing it.
Click to expand...
I can understand that view as well mind
 
Smiler said:
And yet the only people I've ever seen perpetually trying to taint people when it comes to rape is the likes of the monumentally right wing Yaxley and his/their thoughts on all Muslims
Click to expand...
A bit of a bizarre and whacky post and I’m not entirely sure what you’re talking about - but I’ll try and respond.

Not sure who Yaxley is, but I assume you are talking about the Pakistani/ Muslim grooming gangs featured in last weeks media coverage.

That’s an entirely different issue for me. I think if you want to debate that you should go elsewhere.

The link to Diamond’s case is that the grooming gangs were granted anonymity until found guilty and then all their guilty mugshots were put in the press. The point Jack Diamond was making in the interview, was that he was identified in the media for a couple of years with devastating impacts, that he wasn’t granted anonymity and then he was found not guilty by the jury in record time! I think he raises a valid point!
Stevo22 said:
No - the prosecution failed to prove to the jury that he is guilty - that is different to what you are claiming.

And it's not legal hyperbole, it's just the fundamental basics of our legal system and actually should be very easy to grasp.
Click to expand...
Very simple to grasp - got it -but you seem unable to have a meaningful discussion outside of a legal framework that’s sees the case from a human perspective. Just try and expand your mind for a second and move away from a te took.

The jury are normal people in society - whatever language you want to use they clearly and without hesitation thought Jack Diamond was innocent.
 
Last edited:
Birtley Lad said:
A bit of a bizarre and whacky post and I’m not entirely sure what you’re talking about - but I’ll try and respond.

Not sure who Yaxley is, but I assume you are talking about the Pakistani/ Muslim grooming gangs featured in last weeks media coverage.

That’s an entirely different issue for me. I think if you want to debate that you should go elsewhere.

The link to Diamond’s case is that the grooming gangs were granted anonymity until found guilty and then all their guilty mugshots were put in the press. The point Jack Diamond was making in the interview, was that he was identified in the media for a couple of years with devastating impacts, that he wasn’t granted anonymity and then he was found not guilty by the jury in record time! I think he raises a valid point!

Very simple to grasp - got it -but you seem unable to have a meaningful discussion outside of a legal framework that’s sees the case from a human perspective. Just try and expand your mind for a second and move away from a te took.

The jury are normal people in society - whatever language you want to use they clearly and without hesitation thought Jack Diamond was innocent.
Click to expand...
No - you've attached a human element to it (jury obviously thinks he's innocent) when what we are discussing is a legal trial. That’s why I keep talking about the trial, not because I'm incapable of moving away from it but because that's what happened. It was a trial and a not-guilty verdict, nothing more. Have you heard anyone from the trial actually he is innocent and she made the whole thing up? Of course not because they have no way of knowing for certain either way.

Anyway, we're going in circles here. He was found not guilty so we move on. I like to hope he genuinely is innocent.
 
Stevo22 said:
No - you've attached a human element to it (jury obviously thinks he's innocent) when what we are discussing is a legal trial. That’s why I keep talking about the trial, not because I'm incapable of moving away from it but because that's what happened. It was a trial and a not-guilty verdict, nothing more. Have you heard anyone from the trial actually he is innocent and she made the whole thing up? Of course not because they have no way of knowing for certain either way.

Anyway, we're going in circles here. He was found not guilty so we move on. I like to hope he genuinely is innocent.
Click to expand...
That's nice of you....
Birtley Lad said:
Regardless of what legal hyperbole people use - Jack Diamond clearly convinced the jury that he is innocent. Justice has been served!

You said he is been ‘used’ by Piers Morgan as if he is some thickness who can’t think for himself. That’s tainting him!

All because you don’t like the politics of Piers Morgan - like I said, prejudice is influencing peoples views.
Click to expand...

tunstallhill said:
He's being used here by Morgan.

Although diamond may well have been a victim of terrible baseless accusations, Morgan will spin it in with an anti-woman, anti-woke, 'you can't say anything these days' agenda
Click to expand...
You said this before you had seen the interview I take it, I think that is pretty much proving that you had made your mind up so I'd say that was prejudicial, just saying....
 
Last edited:
Stevo22 said:
No - you've attached a human element to it (jury obviously thinks he's innocent) when what we are discussing is a legal trial. That’s why I keep talking about the trial, not because I'm incapable of moving away from it but because that's what happened. It was a trial and a not-guilty verdict, nothing more. Have you heard anyone from the trial actually he is innocent and she made the whole thing up? Of course not because they have no way of knowing for certain either way.

Anyway, we're going in circles here. He was found not guilty so we move on. I like to hope he genuinely is innocent.
Click to expand...
My opinion and your opinion operate outside a legal trial! It’s a free country - you can express your opinion. My opinion is that the jury - each and everyone of them - thought Jack Diamond was innocent! And so do I! You also can express an opinion - go ahead and try it!
Flavonoids said:
That's my belief... what a lad.
Click to expand...
MBH - please enlighten!
 
Last edited:
Kid Galahad said:
You said this before you had seen the interview I take it, I think that is pretty much proving that you had made your mind up so I'd say that was prejudicial, just saying....
Click to expand...

True but that's based on my inherently deep dislike of Morgan as a human being, not based on my political leanings, opinions of jack diamond, this case, or the naming of the accused pre trail.

Anything that has Morgan's name on it I recoil from..can't help it
 

Back
Top