I had to attend a few trials at Crown Court in my working life and one a few years ago in which I had a personal interest. All I can say is thank the Lord that juries are largely sensible people and mostly seem to come to the right decision, notwithstanding the sometimes bizarre approaches taken by Barristers and judges.I worked in the local Magistrates' Courts and saw how things work, at least at that level. Perry Mason it is NOT.
I wonder what the “concrete evidence” could be.The word on the street, but seemingly without official confirmation, is that the german prosecutors have told the parents that they have proof Madeleine is dead.
I had no idea you were friends with Horace Rumpole.One of my oldest friends is an ex-defence lawyer. The job is not conducive to family life.
For several years he'd take phone calls in the dead of night to drive to the most odious districts and ensure that (to be honest) the detritus of society got the best defence he could manage. He was frequently despondent about how light a sentence the most obviously guilty were handed, but he did the job because, every now and again, through carelessness, laziness or non-reflective bias, the police made mistakes; and while those he 'got off' were frequently guilty of a string of other offences, there were genuine innocents caught up in the system by pure flukes of circumstances who had done nothing whatsoever wrong.
He did the job for them and the salary (which, In my opinion, was rubbish for the work demanded).
This small category, I might add, were often the victims of malicious unfounded accusations and 'straight' members or friends of crooks who looked guilty by association.
I had no idea you were friends with Horace Rumpole.
They're formulaic, but nice. The title character is an elderly defense lawyer with little interest in moving up the career ladder, because his heart is in defending 'low lifes'.Aware of the character, but never read the books or saw the TV adaptation.
I can't help thinking that, whether you troll on other subjects or not, getting so heavily invested in someone elses life is not a mentally healthy thing.I would have thought if you were a troll with anti-social personality disorder, you'd just enjoy winding people up about anything. I'm not sure whether the author looked into whether these people were generally troll-y or just reserved it for this one subject.
I used to think trial by jury was a fair system and a great thing. Having served on several juries it has scared the shit out of me. I think it may still be a great system but my confidence was shaken every time.One wonders how much of the perception of our various adversarial courts is driven by their portrayal on telly. The many police and lawyer dramas offer a false perspective of the reality of police and legal work, which can thereby bias the participants, particularly jurors, on the proper procedures and processes around the actual workings of the trial, including evidence presentation, the reliability of witnesses, and causing general bias against the defendant (unless she's really pretty).
It can be heavily dependent on personalities and the prejudices held by the jury members. Also dependent on how bright they are and how much they truly understand. I think it's imperfect, definitely.I used to think trial by jury was a fair system and a great thing. Having served on several juries it has scared the shit out of me. I think it may still be a great system but my confidence was shaken every time.
On one occasion one member simply voted exactly the same way as whoever she happened to be sitting next to.It can be heavily dependent on personalities and the prejudices held by the jury members. Also dependent on how bright they are and how much they truly understand. I think it's imperfect, definitely.
How do you get on playing the lottery? What are the odds of your name coming out of the hat at all, let alone more than once? And does this mean that it's an urban myth that once you've been a juror, you're exempt? Certainly, that's the apparently mistaken impression I've been labouring under (the exemption bit, I mean, not the urban myth bit).I used to think trial by jury was a fair system and a great thing. Having served on several juries it has scared the shit out of me. I think it may still be a great system but my confidence was shaken every time.
It's not perfect. Just better than any alternative. Kinda like democracy.I used to think trial by jury was a fair system and a great thing. Having served on several juries it has scared the shit out of me. I think it may still be a great system but my confidence was shaken every time.
You’re exempt for a period. I was called during a period of exemption once and I pointed this out so they just called me back the following year. It used to be five years it is now three years, here at least. The last couple of times they have a bowl with about 50 of us in and they use that to make two juries. We then hung around to see if anyone was ruled out for whatever reason and then instructed that we were finished with or had to go through the whole process again.How do you get on playing the lottery? What are the odds of your name coming out of the hat at all, let alone more than once? And does this mean that it's an urban myth that once you've been a juror, you're exempt? Certainly, that's the apparently mistaken impression I've been labouring under (the exemption bit, I mean, not the urban myth bit).
Yeah the problem is as I say it scares me but some of the alternatives scare me even more.It's not perfect. Just better than any alternative. Kinda like democracy.
Yeah the problem is as I say it scares me but some of the alternatives scare me even more.
I can't help thinking that, whether you troll on other subjects or not, getting so heavily invested in someone elses life is not a mentally healthy thing.
You’re exempt for a period. I was called during a period of exemption once and I pointed this out so they just called me back the following year. It used to be five years it is now three years, here at least. The last couple of times they have a bowl with about 50 of us in and they use that to make two juries. We then hung around to see if anyone was ruled out for whatever reason and then instructed that we were finished with or had to go through the whole process again.
I was called once in England and I think four times so far in ScotlandI have several friends in Scotland who have been called more than once, but I think I only know maybe one person south of the border who has ever been called up at all - which has always struck me as a bit odd. I wonder if it might be something to do with the size of the electoral roll in relation to the number of cases being tried - a statistical thing common to smaller populations, and not necessarily based on higher crime rates.
I was called once in England and I think four times so far in Scotland
The law must think that you are a very sensible, law abiding person - either that or you're just very unluckyI was called once in England and I think four times so far in Scotland
I have read it argued - well - that our adversarial system is declared to be founded on "innocent until proven guilty" but this is misleading. In The Trial: A History from Socrates to O.J.Simpson by Sadakat Kadri, this is argued thus. It is the CPS who decides they have enough evidence to prove someone guilty of a crime and tries them. The defence then has to challenge and refute that evidence, rather than 'prove' innocence. If the authorities 'know' a person is guilty but can't get sufficient evidence, then there's no case to answer. No defence necessary - the defendant is 'assumed' to be innocent. But if it goes to trial, the authorities think they've hard evidence to prove a person's guilt. That person is appearing in the dock is assumed to be guilty and that the Law can prove it. The defence can't prove innocence, as such, but it can refute the evidence presented.One wonders how much of the perception of our various adversarial courts is driven by their portrayal on telly. The many police and lawyer dramas offer a false perspective of the reality of police and legal work, which can thereby bias the participants, particularly jurors, on the proper procedures and processes around the actual workings of the trial, including evidence presentation, the reliability of witnesses, and causing general bias against the defendant (unless she's really pretty).
This is and interesting interview 'feature' regarding new evidence about the current suspect ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXsXXxRek2Q
This is and interesting interview 'feature' regarding new evidence about the current suspect ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXsXXxRek2Q
He certainly sounds like another Ian Brady.Well, after watching this it seems highly likely the evidence the police have is photographic then - which is just horrendous.