GUILTY UK - Jayden Parkinson, 17, Oxfordshire, 3 Dec 2013

[Cherwell]

Had we had it confirmed before that it was Jake who told police where Jayden was buried?

http://www.jackfmoxfordshire.co.uk/...dge-begins-summing-up-in-jayden-murder-trial/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jayden-parkinsons-killer-buried-body-3861716

(In the print version of one of the Reading papers it said it was via his solicitor when he and Ben first appeared in court, but I can't find an online link to that info.)

Yes, there's a reference to it here. I'm sure it was reported earlier though.

Yesterday [2 July], Detective Sergeant Mark Morton, from the Major Crime Team, was asked about the younger defendant, who told police where they could find the teenager’s remains.

His defence barrister Martin Steen read out the transcript of an interview the 17-year-old had after he was charged, having initially answered “no comment” to all police questions.

Asked if he helped hide Jayden’s body the suspect said: “Yes, but I was unaware it was her body.

“(Ben Blakeley) told me he had a dead dog and a dead cat. He sent me off as he put them in. And I came back and all I could see was mud and he was putting more mud in.”

It seems a bit more plausible to me now that Jake might have believed the story about the dead pets. See this in your link from the Mirror:

“He believed it was a dog and a cat Ben had killed which belonged to a former girlfriend.”

And this:

The Oxford Crown Court jury also heard that Blakeley is believed to have killed cats belonging to both Jayden and another girlfriend.
....

Blakeley told her [Katie] he had stabbed her missing cat to upset her.
....

Sharon Heath, project manager at the hostel, said Jayden had believed Blakeley had killed her cat as it went missing and he turned up at her home with the body.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/ja...laced_girls_he_dated____in_fear_for_lives___/

 

[sar2them1984]

Sorry was on my phone and couldn't open links. Im still on the fence regarding Jake

 

[sar2them1984]

So the jury have had essentially a day and a half of deliberations. I wonder what the hold up is?

 

[Cherwell]

So the jury have had essentially a day and a half of deliberations. I wonder what the hold up is?

Jake, I hope. It only needs one person to disagree.

 

[sar2them1984]

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/jury-jayden-parkinson-murder-trial-7454510

Well no verdict this week.

 

[zwiebel]

Can't believe the jury has taken this long. Still think there will be a guilty verdict though.

 

[sar2them1984]

What is the cut off period where the judge will accept a majority verdict?

 

[Cherwell]

I don't know, but according to the Oxford Mail the jury only sat for an hour and a half yesterday. So they haven't been out very long really - an hour on Wednesday, however long they spent in session on Thursday, plus 90 minutes.

 

[Ellmau]

Not only have they not come to a verdict yet, they're having a break until Thursday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28316228

I thought juries were sequestered, but evidently not.

 

[sar2them1984]

Pfft ots getting a bit farcical now

 

[Cherwell]

The jury will not return until Thursday as one of them has a hospital appointment.

That seems very unusual. A hospital appointment should only involve one day at the most, surely? Wasn't one of the jurors taken ill earlier on during the trial - perhaps it's connected. I think they can proceed with 11 jurors if one is too ill to continue.

 

[Ellmau]

I thought if you were called to be on a jury any planned hospital appointments would get you off it; this case can't have gone on much longer than expected, I wouldn't have thought. My mum got out of jury duty twice (she really didn't want to do it) because my *dad* was awaiting an operation each time.

 

[Cherwell]

Checking back, yes, someone was taken ill on 7 July.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/jayden/11325194.Jayden_trial_halted_as_jury_member_falls_ill/

So the appointment may be a consequence of that. I still can't fathom why more than one day is needed though.

 

[sar2them1984]

Perhaps they aren't local and need travelling time?

 

[Cherwell]

The jury have reconvened today at 10am.

Meanwhile the chap who was up for threatening and abusive behaviour has been found not guilty.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11361314.Man_found_not_guilty_in_Jayden_disturbance_case/?ref=ar

 

[Cherwell]

Update:



12:07pm

The jury have come back into court and been told by Judge Patrick Eccles they no longer need to give unanimous verdicts upon which they all agree. They can return verdicts upon which at least 10 of them agree.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11362526.Blog__Jayden_Parkinson_trial/

 

[sar2them1984]

I must say im hoping this indecision is due to Jake, I cant imagine anyone would have doubts about Ben but perhaps im just being too unforgiving

 

[Cherwell]

I must say im hoping this indecision is due to Jake, I cant imagine anyone would have doubts about Ben but perhaps im just being too unforgiving

I'm with you on that.

Latest - Judge Eccles has said he will not take any verdicts until 2pm at the earliest.

(judge wants his lunch)


ETA

"Thursday is the fifth day the jury at Oxford Crown Court have been deliberating on their verdicts" - that's somewhat misleading. On the first day the jury didn't go out until 4pm, so can only have had barely an hour in session. Then we were told that they were only in session for 90 mins on another day. It's hard to keep track after all these interruptions.

 

[sar2them1984]

Must be hard for the jury stop starting all the while. I admit I was expecting a verdict by now

 

[Cherwell]

I was going to say it's Friday tomorrow - again - :wink:

but the Oxford Mail seems very confident that there will be a verdict today as they have a live blog: Follow our coverage of the verdicts in the Jayden Parkinson trial today and then the reaction.

And they're on the spot, so .....