Thanks, er, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
Printable View
Thanks, er, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
Gannex's point about the bail hearing is a good one.
But so is Hazell's.
Let's assume that he hadn't been named by the media, and had been allowed out on bail so that he could come to my house and have dinner with my sister.
I wouldn't know anything about him except for what I learnt while we were eating. It would be what he said, and the way he acted over dinner which would determine the degree to which I'd be happy for her to go out for a drive with him.
This is exactly how it should work in a criminal trial. As a juror, or member of the press, or someone sitting in the public gallery, I should judge his guilt solely on the evidence presented at a time when he is there to speak for himself and able respond to anything other people are saying about him.
I certainly wouldn't base my opinions of someone on third party information, rumour or speculation.
There are several flaws in this scenario.
Firstly, my sister lives nearly a hundred miles away from me, so it would be very unlikely she would be at my house for dinner. In fact she hasn't been to my house for over a year and when we have dinner together it is always in a pub or restaurant. She also has a boyfriend, who lives with her.
Secondly, my sister is a fully grown woman, and however uncomfortable I felt about a man she was with, I would never tell her not to do something if she wanted to do it.
Thirdly, she is a probation officer and spends her working life dealing with sex and drug offenders, including people who have done far worse things than the accused in the Ipswich case. I think I can trust her judgement.
For those who would like to learn more about the real world effects of losing the presumption of innocence, even in a high profile case, look no further than the latest John Grisham book "An Innocent Man". (Available now from all good book stores)
What does constitute a fair juror in your opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
A fair juror? Someone who takes her responsibility seriously, who has learned how to distinguish the plausible from the implausible, who intuitively sees what is likely to be in the real world, and sense what is not. She is intelligent and street-wise, and brings few prejudices to the court, and those she does bring, she is aware of, and, through conscious effort, can disregard.
A fair juror understands that the conviction of an innocent man is a greater injustice than the acquittal of a guilty one, and, most difficult of all, he understands that it is possible to believe a person probably guilty, but yet harbour doubts. The ability to live with uncertainty is an essential characteristic of a fair juror.
Fair jurors realise that few people lie baldly, but even fewer are able, even if they know it, to tell the whole truth. Though they are sceptical of everyone, police, clergymen, children, fair jurors never disbelieve a person solely because of his accent, job, or background. The juror is open-minded about every witness, open to every argument, and has the ability to weigh evidence in fine gradations, and avoid the mistake of sloppy thinking, assuming one fact or statement proves anything on its own. They have that humility which enables them to give due consideration to others' opinions, especially those which differ from their own.
Fair jurors do not resent their jury service, even though it is underpaid and inconvenient. They do not care how long it takes to deliver justice, just so long as it is delivered. They understand that their job is probably the most important that they will ever undertake, an almost sacred task, their opportunity to play God, and, in my experience, jurors almost always rise to the occasion, even the uneducated and the deprived; for fair jurors come from all walks of life and almost all men and women, once ensconced in the deliberation chamber, find themselves able and willing to be fair.
An update for those forum members who are interested in the continuing saga of the Ipswich prostitute murders. . .
Stephen Wright appeared in Ipswich Crown Court yesterday and was remanded in custody until 1st May. No surprise there, considering no application for bail was made, but of greater interest was the identity of the barrister appointed to represent Mr. Wright: Karim Khalil, QC. Mr. Khalil is very highly respected among criminal lawyers. He specialises in not only crime, but also appears regularly on behalf of the police in civil cases. He is thus perfectly positioned to expertly attack the police investigation in this case. Also, Mr. Khalil prosecuted Ian Huntley in the Soham murders, so he is no stranger to high-profile cases.
Wright's defense team have suggested that they might seek to have the case moved from Ipswich. This makes good sense to me, since the application to move the case will probably be denied. If it is denied, and Wright is subsequently convicted by an Ipswich jury, he will be able to assert on appeal that Ipswich townsfolk were traumatised by the murders, and therefore incapable of rendering a fair, dispassionate verdict. It's not much of an argument, but you have to gather arrows to put in your quiver, even weak ones, wherever you can find them.
Quick question with regards your post Gannex.
Why will the request to move the trail be denied with full knowledge that it'll help (slightly) an appeal? Or would moving it also help?
Actually, Hazell, I talked to a friend who practices criminal law in England (which I never have) and he tells me that you are right and I am wrong; the application to remove the case from Ipswich will, in this country, probably be granted for the very reason you imply; the court will not want to risk giving the defense a good issue for appeal. All I can tell you is that in the States we made these applications for removal all the time, and they were almost never granted; we sometimes used the denial as a ground for appeal, and the appeals were never granted either!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
Another difference between criminal trials here and in the States is that here, once a charge has been brought, the news dries up. Printing juicy details is a contempt of court. Damn!! Spoils all the fun. All we have, since Wright was charged, is the fact, which came out yesterday, that Wright has written to his partner and told her in the letter that he "isn't capable" of such a crime.
Counsel will be very annoyed that Mr. Wright has written this letter. The first thing you tell your imprisoned client is not to talk about the case to anyone, and definitely do not write about it. This letter, for example, makes it much more difficult for Wright to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. So it closes off options. Much better to keep totally quiet.
Gannex
I wonder if your learned friend is familiar with the ancient Olde English incantation that was often chanted by a baying mob with pitchforks outside the prison walls during the mid 15th century whenever a suspected felon was incarcerated within.
I think it still carries great validity with regard to contemporary criminal suspects
Sung to the tune of the ancient London sea shanty "Knees Up Mother Brown" it goes thus:
Burn 'em in their cells
Burn 'em in their cells
Just on the off chance they must go
Ee aye ee aye ee aye o
If you've been offending
I'll burn your face right off
Burn 'em burn 'em
That outta learn 'em
Burn their mums as well Oi!
Next week:
Lulu sings "Maybe it's because I've a taser gun"
You're crediting me with too much there - I had no idea about the subject and was just wondering about it :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Interesting that a private letter after the charges are lodged can become part of the evidence, I wouldn't have thought of that. The partner making it public means she's either stupid or no longer supporting him. I hope it's the later :s
We left this discussion a few weeks back talking about what would happen to Steven Wright, the man initally arrested then subsequently released without charge.
The answer is: not much.
But a completely unconnected man, wrongly pictured by the Daily Mail, has been found dead.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspub...007654,00.html
(You may need to register)
Police are treating the death as "unexplained" but not suspicious at the moment.