And no doubt Charlie, that means 120 accused, just “Walk”?. 🙁
Jim.

There’s always a retrial with a different jury hearing and seeing the same evidence, Jim.

Edit: I see Charliehunt has already pointed this out.

It’s not exactly an everyday event, Jim, but it happens more often than most people might imagine.

Bear….. ?

Pooh….. ?

Oh, please yourselves! :rolleyes:

Para. 4 of my comment describes almost precisely the central problem of this trial. There were ten questions posed by the forewoman most of which had nothing to do with the trial in progress and were couched in meaningless and opaque terms.

The report said that the judge had no option but to discharge the jury. I did not refer to the actual mix of the jury in order to avoid the kind of snide comments that are sometimes all too prevalent. Grey Area, predictably, did not disappoint.

Jim. It wasn’t that the jury could not reach a decision ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ or, reach a majority verdict. On their demonstrated performance, they were manifestly unable to reach a decision – ever.

Grey Area, there was ‘no failing on the part of the trial judge’. He had no choice but to discharge the jury because THEY DIDN’T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON, and couldn’t perform to even a very basic standard. I hope that you never appear before a jury of your peers – you might be in for a bit of a shock.

Yes, I complain about the BBC. They tell lies and I don’t.

I’ll remind those interested that my ‘Trial’ comment was based on Steven wh’s reference to ‘university educational standards’ and ‘BBC dumbing down’.

An impressively swift and agile 180 degree turn, John.

I was commenting on your actual words, not this latest retrospective reimagining.

For example, the implications of “The jury was composed of a mix of men and women – for obvious reasons, I won’t say in what proportions” are quite clear.

You are, therefore, insulting the intelligence of the rest of us by claiming – as you do above – that you made no reference to the mix of the jury. I have shown beyond all reasonable doubt that you did exactly that.

In the light of this, people might draw their own conclusions as to the veracity of your other pronouncements.

For all your bluster it’s fairly clear that you really don’t know what you’re talking about on this subject, just as on so many others.

Yup, ‘fraid so. The. Bears have got it all sewn up 😮

Have they?

Pooh!

Re 218

Steven wh

A rather chilling story was reported this week which tends to throw some doubt on the intellectual capacity of those deemed fortunate enough to have ‘received a university standard of education’. Although, we can’t be sure if any of them received said education.

This report concerned a case that came before a judge and jury. The jury was composed of a mix of men and women – for obvious reasons, I won’t say in what proportions.

The court case was of staggering simplicity. The jury did not have to grapple with complex legal issues. There were no problems that required anything but the most elementary discussion before proceeding to resolution.

The jury forewoman asked a series of questions that were so maddeningly opaque in their simplicity and irelevance that the learned judge could not answer them.

He discharged the jury and ordered a new trial – at what cost?

You don’t know what happened in the jury room any more than I do, and the judge correctly discharged the jury because they declared themselves unable to reach a majority verdict. (Link to story in The Daily Telegraph)

How is that due to any failing on the part of the trial judge or the number of female jurors, as you rather sneeringly imply?

Perhaps you trotted out that little fairy tale to mask your own ignorance of the workings of criminal trials, but a fairy tale it certainly is.

You distorted the facts of this case to push your political ‘opinions’….. and you complain about the BBC! :rolleyes:

Bearpit? Don’t tell me we’ve run out of scorpions again? 😮

Oh Grey Area stop being so hostile. I was making a little joke. Learn to lighten up. You Brits are getting far too spun up on this issue.

Hostile? I was defending your right to spend your own money in whatever way you see fit.

If you call that hostility, you need to get out a bit more. :p