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

[Moll]

As I said I think they must have been pretty evenly split and didn't want to budge on their views. And they therefore knew they couldn't reach a verdict early on in the day today. Best result really but I didn't know there were three charges. How long before the retrial generally?

Eta I just looked at the beginning of the thread and the third ( criminal damage ) charge is due to the damage to the gas pipe, recklessly endangering the lives of his two children. :frown:

And as I said, we can't know how they were split! I've been on a jury where one person was adamantly against the majority and couldn't be budged (and no Twelve Angry Men scenario resulted, either).

Yes, the three charges have been discussed at length on this thread.

 

[Tortoise]

One day was cancelled in the first week due to a juror being ill and a juror being late this morning also delayed matters further.
The cost to the public purse is estimated to be around £500,000 pounds and the trial ended at 2.32pm today when the ten jurors declared they could not reach verdicts.
Lead Prosecutor Michael Bowes told Mailonline outside court that he expected a re-trial to take place around Easter next year.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...urder-trial-complain-judge.html#ixzz4zHcSDi93

 

[Tortoise]

I'll be interested to see if statements made under oath in one trial can be used as evidence in a retrial.

 

[Shiressleuth]

And as I said, we can't know how they were split! I've been on a jury where one person was adamantly against the majority and couldn't be budged (and no Twelve Angry Men scenario resulted, either).

Yes, the three charges have been discussed at length on this thread.

It was obviously more than one or they could have reached a majority. So today it must have been two or more that couldn't be budged in this instance. Plenty of time to continue discussing the charges, as the CPS are going to try again. I'm not sure it couldn't happen again either.(the hung jury I mean). MOO

 

[Shiressleuth]

I'll be interested to see if statements made under oath in one trial can be used as evidence in a retrial.

I'm not a lawyer but as it has been declared a mistrial I don't think any of it counts.

 

[Shiressleuth]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/retrials/

Easter is end of March. Seems a long while to wait for a retrial. This link mentions 14 days.

 

[Supernovae]

Interesting thread on the case from a British Army forum:

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/soldier-arrested-netheravon-parachute-incident.236911/

 

[Alyce]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/retrials/

Easter is end of March. Seems a long while to wait for a retrial. This link mentions 14 days.

I think the 14 days refers to the length of time allowed for the CPS to request/apply for a re trial.

Easter is only 4 months from now, which is not too bad, considering that it took over 2.5 years to bring it to trial initially.

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder what VC is thinking.

 

[Shiressleuth]

I think the 14 days refers to the length of time allowed for the CPS to request/apply for a re trial.

Easter is only 4 months from now, which is not too bad, considering that it took over 2.5 years to bring it to trial initially.

I think you're right and they already requested it today I think.

 

[Shiressleuth]

I wonder what VC is thinking.

Yes, I wonder too. According to the CPS info I posted on retrials where the jury cannot reach a verdict, number 4 says the interests and views of the victim are to be considered, so if, for example, she doesn't want the case to proceed, I wonder if it will make a difference to the police and CPS view?

 

[Supernovae]

Yes, I wonder too. According to the CPS info I posted on retrials where the jury cannot reach a verdict, number 4 says the interests and views of the victim are to be considered, so if, for example, she doesn't want the case to proceed, I wonder if it will make a difference to the police and CPS view?

Given the gravity of the charges, I suspect not.

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&quot]The judge told him: "I am going to continue your bail on precisely the same conditions as before. As you will be aware, if you were to breach any of those conditions you are liable to find yourself arrested and probably put into custody.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Equally, if you were to fail to attend your retrial, then it's highly likely it will continue in your absence and your voice will not be heard."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-sabotage-trial-latest-retrial-a8072531.html
[/FONT]

 

[Squamous]

I missed all this. Ye gods, what a farce. Although on the whole I am surprised that juries so often seem to manage to conduct themselves so well and reach verdicts. 12 strangers usually wouldn’t be able to agree on what to order from a takeaway!

Was one of the discharged jurors the foreperson? What a nightmare trying to get some order or sensible discussion if people were kicking off.

 

[Legally Bland]

Not sure what happened to sub judice, but this is out there now.

Disclaimer: It wasn't me who bought the Mail.

ETA: That's been resized to unreadable.

Page 1
http://www.mediafire.com/view/5b7pcboqv0l1hr6/EC1.jpg

Page 2
http://www.mediafire.com/view/vd9k9dd2d712blt/EC2.jpg

 

[Tortoise]

Do you think that's because there is a loophole or window before a trial date has been fixed, or that this hasn't any direct relevance to the charges? It looks like someone couldn't wait to make some money off the back of this.

 

[Supernovae]

Online version of the above:

http://www.cetusnews.com/news/Parachute-case-soldier-had-a-SECRET-FAMILY.rJGekOvgM.html

 

[Legally Bland]

Do you think that's because there is a loophole or window before a trial date has been fixed, or that this hasn't any direct relevance to the charges? It looks like someone couldn't wait to make some money off the back of this.

I hadn't actually thought about someone getting paid for the story, I must be getting less cynical with age, but it's a good shout.

I think they can probably get away with this, but I don't really understand why they don't just err on the side of caution, it's clearly making inferences about his moral fibre. This story can wait till next May, or whenever. We can read about what an utter *advertiser censored* he is after he's been found guilty.

I think the UK press is cyclical, they'll keep pushing the boundaries until they hit a scandal (Milly Dowler phone hacking, Chris Jeffries etc.), they'll remember their ethics and rein it in for a bit, whilst they defend self-regulation.

But they'll soon start pushing and crossing the boundaries again.

[\RANT]]

 

[Supernovae]

I notice they've taken down the version of that article on the Mail Online.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5117345/Parachute-case-soldier-SECRET-FAMILY.html

Maybe they think that because there isn't a sitting jury then there isn't a threat to the trial, and whatever jurors have seen or read can be dealt with at the time of jury selection.

 

[Moll]

Legally Bland, thanks for that! I didn't really intend to come back to this thread, but somehow found myself doing so today. I don't read the Mail except online for particular stories, but I live in a block of flats where several people have the print newspaper, and the recycling is not collected till Wednesday.

So all I had to do was trot down to the bins and ferret about in the newspapers...Bingo!

I think most of the article is just extra reinforcement to the 'love-rat' theme already embraced by Cilliers' defence counsel, but the last paragraph was on a different level. I'm certainly not surprised they had to take it down.