GUILTY UK - Diane Stewart, 47, found dead, Bassingbourn, Cambridgeshire, 25 June 2010 *arrest in 2020*

[ZaZara]

Has anyone followed another murder trial where a previous conviction was so prominent a part of the case? The prosecution actually applied for it to be excluded, suggesting they thought they had a compelling case without it, but Mr Trimmer made considerable use of it nonetheless. I am wondering how each side will deal with it in their closing statements, and the judge in summing up. Not long to wait now, I guess.

BBM

Happening as we speak:
Found Deceased - France - Maëlys De Araujo, 9, Pont-de-Beauvoisin, 27 Aug 2017 - #2

It was specifically said by one of the lawyers before this trial started that the defendant would go to trial as a man already convicted of another murder. And that is different from a first offender. Nordahl Lelandais has been convicted for the murder of Arthur Noyer in april 2017, and has confessed to causing the death of little Maëlys de Araujo in august 2017.

IMO ( but I am not quite sure) this type of proof is called chain-link proof. Having a compelling case without it is of course always better.

 

[Moll]

Thanks, ZaZara - I knew nothing about that one and you've clearly done a massive amount of work on it. I wonder if there any examples in this country - England and Wales, for legal purposes?

The fact that IS is still maintaining his innocence in the first case must limit the defence team's room for attempting to refute the prosecution's comments, in that they surely can't say the verdict was wrong, though their client does. The crucial question must be whether the medical evidence is almost entirely on the side of the prosecution, as appears to be the case, and then the circumstantial evidence dispels the remaining doubt.

 

[Alyce]

I have not seen any opposing medical evidence or rebuttal being offered by the Defence, but then again, we have so little reporting.

 

[Beachdreams]

I have not seen any opposing medical evidence or rebuttal being offered by the Defence, but then again, we have so little reporting.

Hopefully we will get some good reports of the closing speeches and the Judge’s summing up to fill in the gaps.
I’m sure there can’t have been any “defence” medical or expert evidence - surely the reporters in court last week would have mentioned it? I hope so anyway!!

 

[Cherwell]

The defence did get one of the medical witnesses to say wtte "Yes, it is possible it was SUDEP", and that's probably the best they can hope for.

 

[Beachdreams]

The defence did get one of the medical witnesses to say wtte "Yes, it is possible it was SUDEP", and that's probably the best they can hope for.

And that is my worry. The judge in directing the jury has to tell them that they have to be sure “beyond all reasonable doubt” of IS’s guilt. If they think he probably did it, then that is not good enough; if they think he possibly did it then that is not good enough either.

Here there is a possibility that the death was SUDEP, thereby creating a doubt.

Of course I am taking that statement in isolation - and the reporting has been so poor that we have not really been given a full taste of all the evidence. I hope the evidence of the ischemia - “damage to the cells due to lack of oxygen and blood supply” - which was supported by three witnesses for the Crown, is sufficient to persuade the jury of his guilt.

 

[Cherwell]

And that is my worry. The judge in directing the jury has to tell them that they have to be sure “beyond all reasonable doubt” of IS’s guilt. If they think he probably did it, then that is not good enough; if they think he possibly did it then that is not good enough either.

Here there is a possibility that the death was SUDEP, thereby creating a doubt.

They have to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt; it doesn't need to be beyond all doubt.

 

[Tortoise]

"Consultant neurologist Christopher Derry said he estimated that the risk of Mrs Stewart having a fatal epileptic seizure was about one in 100,000."

And what are the chances of the brain also showing ischemia, and then of him premeditating the drugged suffocation of his completely oblivious fiancee - but not suffocating his wife 6 years earlier.

 

[Legally Bland]

And that is my worry. The judge in directing the jury has to tell them that they have to be sure “beyond all reasonable doubt” of IS’s guilt. If they think he probably did it, then that is not good enough; if they think he possibly did it then that is not good enough either.

Here there is a possibility that the death was SUDEP, thereby creating a doubt.

Of course I am taking that statement in isolation - and the reporting has been so poor that we have not really been given a full taste of all the evidence. I hope the evidence of the ischemia - “damage to the cells due to lack of oxygen and blood supply” - which was supported by three witnesses for the Crown, is sufficient to persuade the jury of his guilt.

They've changed 'reasonable doubt' to 'satisfied that they are sure' to be more jury friendly, so hopefully that helps.

2. The summing up must contain an adequate direction as to the burden and standard of proof whether or not it has been mentioned by any advocate: [Blackburn. 167] No particular form of words is essential. The direction is usually given early in the summing up: [Yap Chuan Ching. 168] What is required is a clear instruction to the jury that they have to be satisfied so that they are sure before they can convict.169

3. It is unwise to elaborate on the standard of proof: [Ching (supra), 170] although if an advocate has referred to “beyond reasonable doubt”, the jury should be told that this means the same thing as being sure.​

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Crown-Court-Compendium-Part-I.pdf
Page 106

 

[Moll]

They have to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt; it doesn't need to be beyond all doubt.

Yes - a source of many difficulties , remember the jury in the Vicky Pryce trial asking what it meant?
How large can a ‘reasonable doubt’ be? | YouGov

EDIT I see LB has posted a helpful account of how the guidance on this has been updated. Thanks, LB.

 

[Moll]

The jury's out:
Jury out in Ian Stewart murder trial

 

[Cherwell]

Oh, how disappointing not to hear summing-up or closing speeches.

 

[Moll]

Yes, it's made it difficult to get a feeling for how it will go.

 

[KarenUK]

I'm hoping they'll be a more detailed end of the day update..... Not holding my breath though!

 

[Beachdreams]

Jury out in Ian Stewart murder trial

Jury’s out…..

 

[Tortoise]

The jury were sent home at around 4.30pm on February 8, and are set to resume deliberations at Huntingdon Crown Court tomorrow, Wednesday 9, at 10am.

Jury begins deliberation in trial of author's killer accused of wife's death

 

[Moll]

From these two reports it would seem the jury were deliberating all afternoon. With so little information it's hard to know whether we can reasonably hope this will all be finished today.

 

[Scratchingmyhead]

Hoping for a verdict this afternoon and hoping for the right one!

 

[Alyce]

 

[Scratchingmyhead]

Lol Alyce - go for a jog round the block..or maybe tackle that pile of ironing