GUILTY Uk - Emile Cilliers Accused Of Tampering W/ Wife's Parachute, Wiltshire, 5 April 2015

[Squamous]

Maybe they had a fight?

I jest but it is odd. It must be super stressful for them all.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Re 'unless she sabotaged it herself' - the defence didn't try to say she was responsible, did they? The defence closing speech relied on the possibility of accident.

I don't know if it was brought up when her suicidal thoughts were discussed.

If the 10 can't agree on a majority verdict of 9-1 tomorrow and it goes into next week with only 9 jurors, could the judge still accept a majority of 8-1 or would it have to be unanimous?

 

[Moll]

I don't know if it was brought up when her suicidal tboughts were discussed.

There certainly was discussion but she denied tampering with her own kit and in his closing speech the prosecution counsel said 'It's not suggested by Cilliers or anyone else that Victoria removed the slinks. Attempted suicide is not an issue in this case - it was an attempt to kill by Cilliers.'
(Daily Mail 9 Nov.)

I need to find what we have of the defence counsel's speech...

 

[Moll]

Can't find it but somewhere a few pages back we all commented on the apparent desperation of the defence counsel quoting an entirely different fatal accident to the stuntman who had appeared as James Bond at the Olympic opening ceremony as proof that such accidents do happen.

I think this episode will have confused people, where Victoria Cilliers cast doubt on her own evidence. Everyone accepted she didn't sabotage the parachute, but perhaps someone thinks she made a mistake:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5032089/Wife-husband-tried-kill-wanted-suffer.html

 

[Alyce]

There have been a number of times when the court listings show a delay in proceedings but don't say the jury are considering their verdict, which might fit.

I was quite willing to think the ailing jurors were being felled by one of the viruses current at this time of year but now wonder. It's very strange, and surely the judge's remarks must be in response to something specific.

That makes sense re the delays in proceedings. Which means, in reality they have not had a full 5 days of deliberations.

I also think the * illnesses* whilst quite genuine, may have been created by infighting. Interesting that one of the discharged jurors is the forewoman.

 

[Alyce]

I don't know if it was brought up when her suicidal thoughts were discussed.

If the 10 can't agree on a majority verdict of 9-1 tomorrow and it goes into next week with only 9 jurors, could the judge still accept a majority of 8-1 or would it have to be unanimous?

Has to be unanimous if there are only 9 jurors.

Can't see it happening.

 

[Tortoise]

I'm actually hopeful for tomorrow.

 

[Alyce]

I'm actually hopeful for tomorrow.

I really do hope they can bring in a verdict today. If they don't, then I can see them telling the Judge today that they will never be able to agree, rather than come back as 9 on Monday.

Also, they will have to elect a new foreman/woman today - wonder if that will make a difference.

 

[Alyce]

Nothing showing on the Law Pages but found this on Court Serve


Court 3 T20160267
EMILE STOLZ CILLIERS
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 10:46

 

[Tortoise]

I forgot that other damning piece of evidence of him searching the term "wet nurse" in the weeks before.

What's more likely, that it was in relation to toddler Princess Charlotte, or his own 5 week old baby?

ETA - Oh, I've just realised this happened in April 2015, not 2016. Princess Charlotte wasn't even born yet :laughing:

 

[Alyce]

So, started at 10.46 and by 10.58 they are already taking a break ?



Winchester 3 T20160267
emile stolz cilliers
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 10:46
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 11:10 - 10:58

 

[Legally Bland]

Court 3 T20160267
EMILE STOLZ CILLIERS
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 11:30
http://xhibit.justice.gov.uk/winchester.htm

 

[Tortoise]

Looks like they've been in with a question.

 

[Moll]

Looks like they've been in with a question.

Yes - I was just noticing this from yesterday's report of the judge's comments in the Mail:
'You have my original legal directions in writing which, as supplemented by my oral answer to your questions the other day, you must follow.'

and wishing I knew what he'd said.

 

[Tortoise]

At least they haven't told him they won't be able to agree. There's a positive.

 

[Legally Bland]

Court 3 T20160267
EMILE STOLZ CILLIERS
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 14:00 - 11:47
http://xhibit.justice.gov.uk/winchester.htm

 

[Tortoise]

Here's a question. If the judge knows or suspects that bullying has been taking place, should he let them all go? Group dynamics interests me, and I think once allegiances are established over many weeks, it has the potential to interfere with process.

 

[Alyce]

So they started today at 10:46

At 10:58 they took a break until 11:30

At 11:47 they adjourned until 14:00

Something's going on for sure - that just does not sound normal.

 

[Tortoise]

So they started today at 10:46

At 10:58 they took a break until 11:30

At 11:47 they adjourned until 14:00

Something's going on for sure - that just does not sound normal.

If the judge is involved in a different case, it's possible he has said he will be available after 2pm. I don't think deliberations are adjourned, unless another one has gone sick...

 

[Alyce]

Ah ha, I should have waited - you've answered my Q Tortoise - makes sense now.

Judge is hearing another case today in Court 3.