moochedit
I'm not feeding seagulls
77 and mates on jury. Hopefully no loons on the retrial jury.I haven't been following the trial, but this seems a bit of a surprise
Constance Marten and Mark Gordon jury discharged
77 and mates on jury. Hopefully no loons on the retrial jury.I haven't been following the trial, but this seems a bit of a surprise
Constance Marten and Mark Gordon jury discharged
77 and mates on jury. Hopefully no loons on the retrial jury.
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 haven't been following the trial, but this seems a bit of a surprise
Constance Marten and Mark Gordon jury discharged
As much as that poster was a loon, it's all a bit Daily Maily to be making such pronouncements about a trial you didn't hear all the evidence for.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Yesterday this board wanted to abolish democracy within the Labour Party, today it’s trial by jury
What tomorrow?
That other thread was nutty as hell. Let’s not merge them!
That other thread was nutty as hell. Let’s not merge them!
I’m not surprised at all. It seemed all the way through that the prosecution case was shaky according to the commentary.I haven't been following the trial, but this seems a bit of a surprise
Constance Marten and Mark Gordon jury discharged