I don't know whether she is guilty or innocent. I wasnt in the court room to hear any of the trial so am not qualified to have an opinion. But combining the fact that all the evidence was circumstantial, with no direct proof of anything, and with all the revelations since the trial, about stuff like dodgy key card evidence purporting to show her in a room at a specific time when it was found to show the opposite, then details like this evidence about how certain babies died being questioned, I am at the point where I can't see how on earth people can comfortably say that her guilt is "beyond reasonable doubt". For me, a retrial at some point is inevitable.
It's well-established that circumstantial evidence can amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal judgement is worth reading, and very strongly upholds the safety of the original convictions.
Well yes, I'd like him to be my best friend in or out of prison. But, unfortunately, such people are few and far between. Or non existent and merely live in the imagination of Stephen King, Frank Darabont, Tim Robins and Morgan Freeman. And thanks to their collective ridiculously enormous talent, ours too.
I still think that film would be better if at the end it turned out Andy *did* kill his wife and the final scene was him stoving Morgan Freeman's head in on the beach in Mexico. That would be a proper twist.
Exactly how I feel. I trust the jury to have reached the correct decision from the evidence presented to them. I also don't know enough about the appeals process to have a worthwhile opinion on that. The only thing I feel comfortable in saying is that I can understand why her lawyers are pursuing the route they are taking. Again, I trust those making the decisions to consider all the evidence available, not just that reported by the press, and make the right decision on how to move forward.
I've thought about that at least a thousand times over the years. I think it would make an amazing film. But it would ruin my life!
I kind of agree. But trial by jury scares the **** out of me. The British people wanted Brexit, and lockdown, and most of them support Premier League football teams and think that Guinness is an acceptable drink. They're literally wrong about everything.
Yes, absolutely yes. But... Erm, I can't prove this, and there's a very good chance I'm basing it on 12 Angry Men... When you're in a situation like that of serving on a jury. When it's just you, you're stripped back, nothing you've ever previously done matters, you haven't got a reputation to uphold, no one knows you, when the only thing that does matter is your honest reaction to the evidence presented to you, I believe the vast majority of people act decently and their prejudices evaporate, particularly if challenged by others on that jury. I think 99% of people want to do the right thing and the chances of a jury being put together that consists primarily of the other 1% is very slim. There are people who use this forum who are in the legal profession who could, undoubtedly, give you a better answer. Having said all of the above, if I got wind that I would be arrested and put on trial, innocent or guilty, you'll need to contact me at the address I will have found in South America. I'll be living next to Mengele's grandson.
There's a fantastic study come out about how Sweden reacted to the Covid crisis. It's behind a pay wall, but I'll try to get you it through work - I think we've paid for it. Racheal de Souza, Children' Commissioner, has pretty much come out and said 'You f***ing lock down again over my dead body'. It's recently been revealed that the number of children missing from education is double what they thought. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/far-more-children-missing-from-school-than-dfe-estimates-says-epi/
I work in the legal profession but don't deal with any trials by jury. I do, however, have colleagues and friends who have served on juries and their stories terrify me. People who want to convict on the basis of "come on, he looks the type, we all know he probably did it" etc. I'd be with you in South America.
Hundreds of thousands of children who's safety we can't vouch for. I can't put into words how angry it makes me. 'Stay safe' indeed.
Some could argue that the "Just Stop Oil" protestors who are in prison might be. Others might argue that some of the terrorists convicted after the Manvers protests are. I think most prisoners would agree that "Mad Macca" on B Wing is an upstanding person and not a raving pyscho who is likely to break your arms for looking in his direction.
I served on Jury service a good 10 years ago. It was an experience, put it that way. Strangely, we had this weird case of Someone pinching a laptop, and we had to decide if he had done it or not (quite how this got to crown court, I've no idea, but it did). There was literally zero evidence of this kid actually taking it. Plenty of footage shows him handling it and trying to sell it, but absolutely zero of him "breaking and entering," despite the area being littered with CCTV. The "evidence" presented on both sides was a bit of a farce, so we didn't have much to go on. Anyway, we were sent away for our deliberations, with the instruction that we had to be 100% sure he had done it, and all members of the Jury had to agree. It was quite difficult when you were locked in a room with only an alarm Bell to press when you were "done." We were in that room for 3 hours, and 2 old "battle axes" were 100% sure he did it. The remaining tried to discuss it in a constructive manner. At the time, I smoked. And I was gasping, and I was sick of hearing these 2 old "retirees" not budging or listening to anything anyone said. Chances are this Kid did it, but where we had doubt, it wasn't a "safe conviction" in my eyes, and nothing said he did. So, I kind of lost my rag in front of the other members of the Jury. I whipped out a marker pen and put the "whiteboard" squarely on the table (it's the only thing we were given). I simply drew a line with a Zero at one end and 100 at the other, i.e. 0 ----------------------- 100. Then, I proceeded to work around the table, giving the marker pen to each member and asking, "Where on that line is your percentage "confidence" that he actually lifted this laptop? Only the 2 "Pensioners" marked 100%. Everyone else ranged between 40 and 70 (ish). At which point I stood back up and said, "Our instruction is that we have all got to agree and all be 100%", and we clearly cannot agree. Can we press that button over there and bugger off home, as I want a bloody ***". So we did, and I did. Then, upon leaving, I happened to bloody bump into this geezer and his "heavily" pregnant girlfriend outside as we were leaving, and they chuffing thanked me. Christ on a bike. Everyone entering and leaving that court went through the same bloody doors... That was very, very unnerving. Anyway, this post is just to agree that no matter who is on that Jury, you are 100% correct that some will want to convict based on how they look. I can very much vouch that this happened on the above occasion.
I agree that some do, but the chances that the jury is made up of all people like that is, I would argue, somewhat slim. Most people are like you and the rest of the jurors. Or I hope so anyway. Thanks for recounting your experience.
