Marantz4250b
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 2,730
- Reaction score
- 13,753
What emails? Have I missed something?We also have the “ mysterious emailer “
Erm !
What emails? Have I missed something?We also have the “ mysterious emailer “
Erm !
He got a promotion, he's banging the hammer on Friday. Tis the public will, three cheers for lorenzo. Hip hipI wonder why the hospital plumber didn't make an appearance in this trial.
What's that about? Sounds ruddy mysterious!We also have the “ mysterious emailer “
Erm !
EH?Wow - so an anonymous attempt to de-rail the whole trial!!!
Just when you thought this case had no more surprises left to give!!
Para.193 onwards; after jury deliberations had gone on for days and some verdicts had been delivered the Court received an email alleging that a juror was frequenting a cafe and talking about the case to all and sundry and that they'd already made their minds up months back that she was guilty.
Well, if it is a choice between finding her Guilty or Not Guilty, I would have to go with GUILTY because of the irreversible damage done to many of the surviving babies. Some were blinded or paralysed permanently. She should not be able to receive a 'not guilty' verdict when the surviving victims have life long disabilities because of her vile actions.Well, logically, we can.
Yes, that evidence might be evidence of her having an intent to kill but it could also reasonably be evidence of her intention to cause suffering without death or simply wanting to cause a scene to bring attention to herself.
Remember that the crime of attempted murder requires a definite and unambiguous intention to cause death. Engineering a situation which comes very close to death, even extremely close, or being entirely uncaring as to whether death actually occurred is not attempted murder.
YES, you could if you proved she pumped air into her lungs or dislodged her oxygen. Who cares whether she wanted her to die or just wanted her to be on the verge of death and be revived? BOTH of those scenarios are AT, IMO.Then you could not convict her of attempted murder!
Indeed. And it all seems to have stemmed from an argument over a phone!It sounds unbelievable. "Random person walks into cafe, starts shouting all info about the trial including something quite obviously designed around the rule about a " fair trial".
Impersonal vocabulary, lack of detail, lack of corroborating evidence, lack of certification, That's a fool or a nuts attempt. Fool to think they would take it at face level as well.
It looks like the jury didn't care about that question of intent but looked at the results----GUILTYAnswering my own question…
In seeking the reference re murder definition I found the bit that says about causing serious harm BUT it states that in attempted murder cases the serious harm part does not apply, only the intent to kill applies
“Murder
- with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (in contrast to the offence of attempted murder, where only intent to kill will suffice)”
Of course they cared about the intent element - it's an absolutely essential part of the crime. The judge will have said that in no uncertain terms!It looks like the jury didn't care about that question of intent but looked at the results----GUILTY
Ok, then how do you interpret the Guilty verdict?Of course they cared about the intent element - it's an absolutely essential part of the crime. The judge will have said that in no uncertain terms!
No intent = no attempted murder conviction.
As a guilty verdict!Ok, then how do you interpret the Guilty verdict?
It's been said that she wouldn't be able to be determined to have committed AT because there is reasonable evidence that she wasn't trying to actually kill ---just push them to the edge.
So if they cared about 'lack of intent' wouldn't they have voted Not Guilty? I think they rejected the notion that one needed to prove that it had to be absolute and not 'a reasonable chance' of death occurring.