BreakingNews
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,910
- Reaction score
- 6,283
My conclusions so far -
* Fuller sounded to be absolutely brilliant. Super happy with his closing. Factual, thorough and pretty well impossible to dispute. Easy to understand, doesn't sound boring like you would 'tune out' so it'd be absorbed. Is that the case, were the jury listening intently to ever word taking it all in? I agree with him making the main motive the women rather than money. The money was a pressure point but I think the affair and the personal aspect is more likely to make someone go to that level. The other thing is the money pressure was there but not just there *that night* whereas the thing with the women was relevant to that night, to both of them, and then the thing the next day. So it points to the timing much clearer.
* Judge Byrne, sounds to have summarised the evidence so far in a way that supports the prosecution. Not because he's trying to taint it that way but because the actual evidence swings that way. Excellent. I like too that he said the case being circumstantial is fine and that they can deduce things from the evidence and make inferences. Just so long as if they find him guilty it's because the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence is that he killed her. That's all good in my opinion because the defence's suggestion was even less reasonable and the only conclusion that anyone understanding of the facts could come to is that he's guilty, so I hope the jury got all this as they've had less time to think on it than we have. I wonder if the Judge will explain what reasonable doubt means too. I'd like to know they understand it's not 100% proof, it's that there's no other reasonable explanation for what happened.
The inquiry into the media and the juror - It sounds like the juror reported it and therefore may have shut it down. I wouldn't think it can cause a mistrial unless the juror was shown to have ignored the instructions of the Judge and/or breached their duty. The case is so up there in the media to think that they wouldn't have heard anything at all would be pretty impossible which is why I think they've said they have said to ignore what they hear rather than to not hear it.
'Beyond reasonable doubt' does not imply it needs to be 100%.
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/86060/sd-bb-57-reasonable-doubt.pdf
Reasonable Doubt
The suggested direction should only be given where the jury indicates that it is struggling with the concept.1 It draws on Krasniqi (1993) 61 SASR 366; cf Chatzidimitriou (2000) 1 VR 493, 498, 503, 509. See also Green v The Queen (1971) 126 CLR 28 at 33.
A reasonable doubt is such a doubt as you, the jury, consider to be reasonable on a consideration of the evidence. It is therefore for you, and each of you, to say whether you have a doubt you consider reasonable. If at the end of your deliberations, you, as reasonable persons, have such a doubt about the guilt of the defendant, the charge has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.2