Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Aristocrat's daughter on the run with sex offender and newborn

Totally speculating here, but she was still receiving funds from a family trust in spite of being estranged, penny to a pinch of shit her old man stumped up for the best briefs money can buy, which often seems to swing things their way.
 
I wonder if the loons were paid for too. If you suspect the jurors are going to be discharged and googling on the quiet, astroturf nutters flooding content are probably pretty cheap in comparison with the legal bills.

Unlikely. But just a thought. Legal systems are so resistant to change that they must have all sorts of vulnerabilities in an age when content is so easy to spin up and target.
 
I wonder if the loons were paid for too. If you suspect the jurors are going to be discharged and googling on the quiet, astroturf nutters flooding content are probably pretty cheap in comparison with the legal bills.

Unlikely. But just a thought. Legal systems are so resistant to change that they must have all sorts of vulnerabilities in an age when content is so easy to spin up and target.


I'd rather my guilt or innocence was decided by a group of ordinary people, the like if whom you have contempt for than by a judge or a panel of judges. I also assume that having actually attended the trial the jury might have a more nuanced view of the case than you. I assume that you didn't attend the trial in person. The fact that you wanted them to be found guilty doesn't mean that they should have been
I haven't been following the trial, but this seems a bit of a surprise

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon jury discharged


Given how long a verdict has been expected, it's not really that much of a surprise that the jury couldn't have come to a verdict they agreed on.
 
I'd rather my guilt or innocence was decided by a group of ordinary people, the like if whom you have contempt for than by a judge or a panel of judges. I also assume that having actually attended the trial the jury might have a more nuanced view of the case than you. I assume that you didn't attend the trial in person. The fact that you wanted them to be found guilty doesn't mean that they should have been


Given how long a verdict has been expected, it's not really that much of a surprise that the jury couldn't have come to a verdict they agreed on.

Weirdo.

I’ve got no particular axe to grind either way in this case. What I thought was notable was the nutter who registered and reregistered a dozen times to insist that the parties were innocent.

BIB is something of a stretch, too. As is “pitchfork brigade”.

Weirdo.
 
Weirdo.

I’ve got no particular axe to grind either way in this case. What I thought was notable was the nutter who registered and reregistered a dozen times to insist that the parties were innocent.

You're the one conspiralooning about jurors googling on the quiet and having their decision swayed by the loons posting shit hon Urban75. I find that weird.
 
You're the one conspiralooning about jurors googling on the quiet and having their decision swayed by the loons posting shit hon Urban75. I find that weird.

Don't agree - if the jurers have to be repeatedly warmed about hitting Google during a case, then that suggests that it can be a problem.

Personally I'd imagine that the loons are entirely self-funding - not least because there's no shortage of loons put there, and they latch on to any old rubbish and really put the work in. There's an endless stream of conspiraloon stuff out there about Lucy Letby, Madeline McCann, and a hundred others.

If the old boy is funding the best briefs, they'll have let him know that his money is far better spent on them, and that if he were to be proven to have paid for bot farms in order to nibble the jury, the penalties would be severe - and might well end up in the daughter getting retried.

But we all know how desperate people can convince themselves of pretty much anything, regardless of how foolish it looks from outside...
 
5 months of trial and 72 hours deliberating. Looks like someone on the jury was riding this out for as long as they possibly could. There's no way this can't go to a retrial. More public expense wasted over these scumbags. Fuck sake.
 
Don't agree - if the jurers have to be repeatedly warmed about hitting Google during a case, then that suggests that it can be a problem.
Seems like that googling is more likely to lead to the suggestion that they must be guilty, who needs a full trial, lock them up and stop wasting taxpayers money. Not to mention that it's not just about being swayed by opinions on the trial, but also coming across any information related to the case that was not presented to the jury in court.
 
5 months of trial and 72 hours deliberating. Looks like someone on the jury was riding this out for as long as they possibly could. There's no way this can't go to a retrial. More public expense wasted over these scumbags. Fuck sake.
Looks like you are jumping to the conclusion the conclusion that you want to jump to. As to a retrial, regardless of your frothing about the expense to the public purse, I don't suppose that it is either impossible or unlikely.
 
The defence pathologist gave evidence that if everything the defendants said was correct then their poor baby might have not have got very cold, and claiming a pop up festival tent from Argos might operate like a Mongolian yurt. That struck me as remarkably credulous and dubious but I wonder if his evidence convinced some of the jury.
 
Back
Top Bottom