Both closing addresses have now been delivered. As someone else, I think it was Alyce, mentioned, they were relatively brief. In many trials (perhaps not this one as it seems to be zipping along rather swiftly), there can be legal discussions from counsel in the absence of the jury re judge's summing up re certain things that they would like to be pointed out to the jury. This can take some time, or it may not even happen at all. The summing up may not take that long, but the judge will provide a brief outline of the case put to the jury by each party (prosecution and defence) and raise any points which he may find relevant whilst remaining impartial. There is all the usual procedural bumpf that the judge is obliged to mention in every single case. The jury is then sent off to deliberate. Who knows what they are thinking or how long this may take. When they eventually return with their verdict the judge's associate then takes that verdict from the foreperson. If the accused is found guilty, then the prosecution is allowed to raise certain matters before the jury (that's how it happens in Australia, I was a judge's associate in court of N.S.W. for 17 years), and if, as some have hinted at, that this particular accused has a "history" that is then permitted to be revealed now that the verdict is in, if that verdict is one of guilty. I am glad that I am not on this jury. I have very mixed feelings about so much of it. I honestly feel that there is so much more to this case. The dna is a concern, to be sure. However, I have sat on a trial where it has been found that dna was transferred deliberately to frame that accused. I know for a fact that juries are never privy to the whole of the evidence in a trial as it would prejudice the case for the accused or sometimes cast doubt on certain statements/evidence for the prosecution. My wish is that dear wee Alesha is safe and well now, and at peace, and that true justice shall prevail in this dreadful, evil case and that her loved ones manage to survive this horror.
