Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by cybervampira, Feb 2, 2019.
We have no evidence to show he killed her by silencing her ....if we did he would have been convicted last week imo
Does unethical lead to happiness Steve?
I wonder whether sometimes, after a verdict, the judge goes home thinking how on earth did they come to that conclusion? After hearing the prosecution and defence there must be a certain frustration in not knowing how the verdict was reached.
But we know there are gaps in the reporting. For example, last night I quoted the HDM coverage about the footprints. I am quite sure PR was asked further questions about that, since he admitted he could see her footprints on the third visit, but we don’t know what the outcome was.
Hopefully there are a few more crucial nuggets of information that the jury have and we don’t!
Yes of course no problem
I for one would absolutely NOT like verdicts to be reached purely by judges.
If only because A, that could lead to manipulation/corruption and B, mostly because there are still judges & legal professionals who tell rape victims during trials that they shouldn't have worn skimpy knickers or been out on their own or had too much to drink ... even worse, there are some who think that a 'a womans body can just shut down and not allow penetration if she doesn't want sex' ... *facepalm*
This is why I haven't voted in the poll. I think he probably killed her, possibly accidentally, but I haven't seen/heard enough evidence to be sure.
I think the same goes for the Police on the case too. My partner was a juror on a trial about 10 years ago. They found the defendant not guilty and the investigator on the case was apparently visibly angry in the courtroom
There seems to be discussions around misadventure not reported also ...just a brief mention they occurred...yet reporting concentrated on the suicide aspect...which imo is extremely unlikely
Its impossible to know how the defence presented that and the effect it had on the jury
Definitely the reporting has an influence on those of us following from outside the courtroom.
If we were there, we not only would have the benefit of the full evidence available to be considered, but also no reporting bias, just our own opinions on how the witnesses presented etc.
I agree but I'm not sure this is working very well either.
Perhaps some kind of explanation of the law is needed at the start.
Like how to infer circumstantial evidence. How to narrow it down to reasonable options etc. Greater freedom for experts to offer informed opinions etc
Judges are seen by many to be “elite” (Enemies of the People anyone?). Justice shouldn’t just be done, it should be seen to be done. The latter is more likely if the verdict reached by a cross-section rather than one strata of society.
Mind you, a minimum test to ensure some deductive reasoning/logic skills are present rather than tabloid-induced outrage might help
I think a trial must be done by a group of people. One polarised opinion is unfair for many reasons.
In an ideal world it would be great if all juries consisted of a panel of experts who could argue for and against based on knowledge as well as judgement - but as that is never going to happen, a jury of peers is the next best thing.
I think the judge has likely done this ...also the jury can ask for legal direction from the judge at any point.
I think also the jury have documents similar to pathways to follow for direction.
I suppose the problem with experts to give "general opinion" both the defence and prosecution would be entitled to one and likely could both get one to fit their own version in complex cases
The thing I have noticed is that people from all walks of life have a valuable contribution to make. Some are highly educated and eloquent, others may have much more practical real-world experience even though they are not very academically-minded. I do like the Jury system for this reason.
Well shoot - I've come up with 12 hours 45 minutes. Does that mean they took about an hour of lunch on Friday & today?
Jurors are the voice of ordinary people. They represent all citizens so that's why they are respected - they symbolise free society.
I did read something (somewhere down one of the many internet rabbit holes I’ve gone down lately) about judges explaining things before the evidence was presented making it easier for juries as they knew where to concentrate their minds. *Helpful*
I don’t know - reporter could be basing it around the typical courtroom day of 10:30-4:30(earlier finish Friday & today) with 1-2 lunch & shorter breaks am & pm rather than direct knowledge