NSS
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,069
- Reaction score
- 265
Spent much time thinking about the whole NG verdict and the SA/DT part in it.
I think there were 3 very important points where justice failed.
The jury was selected in a hurry, not allowing for a properly qualified jury. Not just regarding the DP, but also at the point where 'hardship' would become a factor (family or finances, even health issues). This was a poorly picked jury.
The DT were allowed a trial by ambush. Their experts, evidence and witness list suggested that they were simply going to poke holes in the SA case. Despite being forced to state what the experts would testify to, the DT managed to include additional testimony (so as not to punish the defendant).
The SA didn't change their case at all following opening statements. Once JB declared the child was dead from day one, the lies and 31 days contents became less impressive. What mattered then was that George was NOT there, and showing how unlikely the drowning scenario was. Whilst this would be unconventional (The SA disproving rather than proving) it was required in this trial. Like most of us, the SA felt they could prove murder and nothing else would be possible.......they failed to show the jury how a drowning was impossible. They should have made more of an effort to disprove drowning and abuse.......I'd have at least read the testimony from GA at a hearing when JB asks if he'd do ANYTHING to save his daughter --- and he said yes. That would have gone a small way to show the lies of the family.
These are the 3 main errors - all could have been avoided by Judge Perry, but he tied his own hands by worrying about tomorrows appeals rather than todays trial. We now get to fund her 'special' probation, but at least we don't pay for 3 squares a day for her.
**Still concerned about the verdict and wondering how to fix the broken system**
I think there were 3 very important points where justice failed.
The jury was selected in a hurry, not allowing for a properly qualified jury. Not just regarding the DP, but also at the point where 'hardship' would become a factor (family or finances, even health issues). This was a poorly picked jury.
The DT were allowed a trial by ambush. Their experts, evidence and witness list suggested that they were simply going to poke holes in the SA case. Despite being forced to state what the experts would testify to, the DT managed to include additional testimony (so as not to punish the defendant).
The SA didn't change their case at all following opening statements. Once JB declared the child was dead from day one, the lies and 31 days contents became less impressive. What mattered then was that George was NOT there, and showing how unlikely the drowning scenario was. Whilst this would be unconventional (The SA disproving rather than proving) it was required in this trial. Like most of us, the SA felt they could prove murder and nothing else would be possible.......they failed to show the jury how a drowning was impossible. They should have made more of an effort to disprove drowning and abuse.......I'd have at least read the testimony from GA at a hearing when JB asks if he'd do ANYTHING to save his daughter --- and he said yes. That would have gone a small way to show the lies of the family.
These are the 3 main errors - all could have been avoided by Judge Perry, but he tied his own hands by worrying about tomorrows appeals rather than todays trial. We now get to fund her 'special' probation, but at least we don't pay for 3 squares a day for her.
**Still concerned about the verdict and wondering how to fix the broken system**
