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

[Moll]

Thanks for spotting that, Tortoise. It was obviously added after we thought the report had finished. So rather more happened in court yesterday (Friday) than was apparent.

This also seems more clearly put than last time, though it's hard to be sure from the reports, and I might be forgetting something.

 

[Tortoise]

I think you're right Moll. The prosecutor seems to have sharpened his knives.

 

[Moll]

I think you're right Moll. The prosecutor seems to have sharpened his knives.

Good, if he has!
I am not sure about the rules for re-trials, and whether additional or even different evidence can be presented - do you know? I assume it's as if the slate's wiped clean, so it can. Thinking about it again, though, the DM report says 'in a video played in court' so Mr Bayada's evidence could be exactly the same as before.

 

[Tortoise]

Good, if he has!
I am not sure about the rules for re-trials, and whether additional or even different evidence can be presented - do you know? I assume it's as if the slate's wiped clean, so it can. Thinking about it again, though, the DM report says 'in a video played in court' so Mr Bayada's evidence could be exactly the same as before.

He gave evidence in person first time around, except for when he recorded himself sabotaging parachutes inside the toilet cubicle.

 

[Moll]

Oh yes, I remember that now...Thanks. (I should have looked back myself!)

EDIT Just looked... In fact he was also very compelling first time round.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Army-sergeant-s-wife-brilliant-skydiver.html

The bit that struck me this time as additionally forceful was what he said about how you'd see damage to other parts of the equipment if the slinks had failed.

 

[Moll]

I was just trying to check (instead of relying on Tortoise to do the legwork!) about the rules for retrials, but only came up with the circumstances in which they are allowed, from the Crown Prosecution Service website, which may be worth reminding ourselves of, even though I think they've been mentioned before:

Failure of Jury to Agree on a Verdict

Guidance

There is a presumption that the prosecution will seek a re-trial where a jury fails to agree on a verdict at the first trial.
The following factors should be taken into account when considering a re-trial in these circumstances.

1. The merits of the case:
   • Is there still a realistic prospect of a conviction?
   • Have any material changes occurred during the course of the first trial?
   • Are the witnesses willing, and available, to give evidence again?
2. Likely reasons for the jury's failure to reach a verdict:
   • Was the failure to reach a verdict perverse? If so, a retrial is likely to be appropriate.
   • Is there a suggestion that the jury was influenced by factors other than the evidence? This might bear investigation for an offence of jury interference (see Retrial following a tainted acquittal below).
3. The public interest in seeking a verdict. Consider the following factors:
   • the seriousness of the offence;
   • the length of time since the offence was committed;
   • the likely delay until the case can be re-tried;
   • whether the defendant is in custody;
   • the likely sentence if the defendant is ultimately convicted; and
   • the consequences of proceeding or not (for example, any effect on linked or co-defendants).
4. The interests and views of the victim(s).
5. Any views expressed by the trial judge.
6. Prosecuting Advocate's opinion.
7. The views of the police.

I think there must be freedom to re-present the case, or defend the case, in a slightly different way. I saw a comment on an American website that acquittal was more likely in retrials because the prosecution tend to be locked into the same method of presentation whereas the defence have more flexibility to shift their ground. I'm not sure how true that is in this case. If the defendant totally changes his story from last time, the previous version can surely be mentioned to show inconsistency?

 

[Moll]

This claims to have been posted this afternoon and the first three sentences seem to be new, but the rest looks like evidence from Friday, right down to saying the trial continues on Monday.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rgeant-bid-kill-wife-phased-jumping-club.html
It doesn't seem to have continued, much.

 

[Tortoise]

Another article from last week that we missed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-trying-murder-wife-tampering-parachute.html

 

[Moll]

Should we all sing 'Why are we waiting?'

No change in the listings.

Just looking back at Mr Bayada's previous evidence, it seems to me he first said he didn't think Cilliers could have tampered with the parachute in the toilet, and was then asked to try it while being videoed by the police, so those clips were shown several days later. Is that right? Makes them all the more convincing, if so.

 

[Legally Bland]

Should we all sing 'Why are we waiting?'

No change in the listings.

Just looking back at Mr Bayada's previous evidence, it seems to me he first said he didn't think Cilliers could have tampered with the parachute in the toilet, and was then asked to try it while being videoed by the police, so those clips were shown several days later. Is that right? Makes them all the more convincing, if so.

That's how I remember it. I think the jury asked for a demonstration so he did the video.

 

[Tortoise]

More from Mr Bayada yesterday

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20180418/282179356675858

 

[Moll]

Well spotted, Tortoise, I didn't find anything. Have you noticed if you search on 'Bayada' you get care homes?

He too has sharpened up his points, I think. Last time he said Cilliers was unemotional, this time he says also he never asked how on earth it could have happened, which he would have done if talking to the person who supplied the parachutes. Very telling.

 

[Alyce]

A bit of activity this morning



Winchester

Thursday 19 April 2018 11:44



Court 2

T20160267

EMILE STOLZ CILLIERS

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 11:49 - 11:35


https://www.courtserve.net/services/faq/faq.php

 

[Alyce]

Winchester 2

T20160267


emile stolz cilliers


Details: - No Information To Display -
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 09:53
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 1 Continues - 10:27
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 11:49 - 11:35
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 11:48


http://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/Winchester-Crown-Court.php

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder if Mr Bayada's 'toilet video' means the jury won't get a site visit this time.

 

[Alyce]

Very short day today


Winchester 2

T20160267


emile stolz cilliers


Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 09:42
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 16:30 - 09:59


http://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/Winchester-Crown-Court.php

 

[Moll]

Thanks, Alyce, and for yesterday's updates. It's been a very short week, really, with very little info coming out in the press. We need a court attender next week!

 

[Tortoise]

16:30? Why hasn't it been adjourned to Monday morning? I wonder if they are getting the witness from USA on video link, (I have a vague recollection of that happening in the 1st trial) which would allow for the time difference over there.

 

[Alyce]

16:30? Why hasn't it been adjourned to Monday morning? I wonder if they are getting the witness from USA on video link, (I have a vague recollection of that happening in the 1st trial) which would allow for the time difference over there.

Makes sense - otherwise as you say, why not just go home until Monday

 

[Tortoise]

Makes sense - otherwise as you say, why not just go home until Monday

I noticed he tweeted something about cricket yesterday. I couldn't work out the time of it though, because it appeared to be at about 2pm but it didn't show up on twitter until about 10pm. I don't know if tweets are set to UK time because I don't have a twitter account.

Anyway, I don't know if he's just acting cool or if he really isn't worried. No sense no feeling?