GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #9

[michelle230]

I can see it taking a few day to get a verdict. There was a lot of evidence to discuss and the jury could get engrossed in discussing the insane web of lies like we do.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

I sincerely hope not!
I`m still going for Tuesday by lunch time.

 

[Moll]

Personally I think there should be a direction from the Judge

If defence runs a passive defence where the accused does not testify then the defence can legitimately query whether the "unlawful element" has been proved

But IMO where the defence suggests accident contrary to the direct evidence of the accused, the Judge should invite the jury to make an adverse inference in my view.

Afterall, only the accused has direct knowledge of whether it was an accident.

Therefore he should not be able to rely on this if he testifies it was not an accident.

Look at it this way

The defence could have framed its entire case around accident as opposed to Nick and Joe

The fact that the accused has not done that requires an adverse inference - i..e that it was not an accident.

Again apologies if this is esoteric but I feel this is farcical.

And for the Pistorius trial veterans, this is indeed exactly the sort of farce that helped him get off lightly.

Thank you very much, mrjitty. Not esoteric at all, vital to our concerns of the past few days. The other big point - if not quite so crucial -he distorted was the issue of whether IS stood to gain more money if he had waited until he and Helen were married to commit the murder.

Not long now until we see how Judge Bright deals with this.
Can anyone post a portrait of him? We had pictures of the two counsel to contemplate, and I see there is one online, but don't know how to put it up here.

 

[michelle230]

I think this is right, Michelle. At least two hours, anyway, and as stated it could be days in a complicated case..

From the Juries Act 1974:
17 Majority verdicts.

(1)​

Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the verdict of a jury in proceedings in the Crown Court or the High Court need not be unanimous if—

(a)​

in a case where there are not less than eleven jurors, ten of them agree on the verdict; and

(b)​

in a case where there are ten jurors, nine of them agree on the verdict.

(2)​

Subject to subsection (4) below, the verdict of a jury (that is to say a complete jury of eight) in proceedings in a county court need not be unanimous if seven of them agree on the verdict.

(3)​

The Crown Court shall not accept a verdict of guilty by virtue of subsection (1) above unless the foreman of the jury has stated in open court the number of jurors who respectively agreed to and dissented from the verdict.

(4)​

No court shall accept a verdict by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) above unless it appears to the court that the jury have had such period of time for deliberation as the court thinks reasonable having regard to the nature and complexity of the case; and the Crown Court shall in any event not accept such a verdict unless it appears to the court that the jury have had at least two hours for deliberation.

(5)​

This section is without prejudice to any practice in civil proceedings by which a court may accept a majority verdict with the consent of the parties, or by which the parties may agree to proceed in any case with an incomplete jury.

Thank you Moll for confirming that x

 

[BatFace]

Yes, I think by the end of tomorrow would be too early, but at some point on Tuesday it should be in, I agree.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Squamous]

I've looked at Peter Hyatt too and seem to find he makes a lot of very absolute statements when it's his opinion. Also, I'm not sure that he makes any allowances for culture, British manners are very different to American and we do definitely waffle on as a nation and use ten words where one would do, in general.

I think it's a really interesting field but I'm definitely wary of how much weight is attached to things that take a one-size-fits-all approach. I do think that IS' 101 call was dodgy as hell though and a good place to apply his ideas!

 

[neteditor]

Thank you very much, mrjitty. Not esoteric at all, vital to our concerns of the past few days. The other big point - if not quite so crucial -he distorted was the issue of whether IS stood to gain more money if he had waited until he and Helen were married to commit the murder.

Not long now until we see how Judge Bright deals with this.
Can anyone post a portrait of him? We had pictures of the two counsel to contemplate, and I see there is one online, but don't know how to put it up here.

 

[Tortoise]

[FONT=&amp]Copied from this website:
[/FONT]
https://ukcrime.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/how-do-juries-decide-a-case/[FONT=&amp]

"The minimum period of time that the jury have to have been thinking about their verdict (‘in retirement’) before a jury can return a majority verdict is 2 hours 10 minutes. In practice, Judges will give a jury longer than that. The general rule is that the longer and more complicated the case, the longer the Judge will give the jury before giving a majority direction. Sometimes it will be several days in a particularly serious case."

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Not recent but within the last few years. Can anyone verify if this is the case?[/FONT]

Bear in mind that is for a majority verdict. I don't know if it applies to unanimous verdicts. Someone here pointed out that the Peter Tobin jury returned with a guilty verdict in less than 20 minutes.

 

[Lit Up]

Judge Bright comes off in the courtroom as a very reasonable and pleasant man. I remember when the prosecution suddenly produced "Joe and Nick" and Judge Bright had no forewarning. He took issue with this in the most mild manner; saying to Trimmer "I'm not complaining, but...". A fair man all round. Does his best to make his "judge face" (i.e. inscrutable, objective), asks the witnesses if they are better sitting or standing etc.

 

[Joely 123]

Judge Bright comes off in the courtroom as a very reasonable and pleasant man. I remember when the prosecution suddenly produced "Joe and Nick" and Judge Bright had no forewarning. He took issue with this in the most mild manner; saying to Trimmer "I'm not complaining, but...". A fair man all round. Does his best to make his "judge face" (i.e. inscrutable, objective), asks the witnesses if they are better sitting or standing etc.

I loved Judge Bright showing his respect for dogs - evident when one of the dog handler's was in Court.

 

[michelle230]

Bear in mind that is for a majority verdict. I don't know if it applies to unanimous verdicts. Someone here pointed out that the Peter Tobin jury returned with a guilty verdict in less than 20 minutes.

Ah...right! Better still! Thanks - 20 minutes sounds good, a lot better than 2 hours 10 mins for sure!

 

[Alyce]

The Crown Court

at St Albans
Daily List for Monday 20 February 2017 at BRICKET ROAD ST ALBANS


Court 1 - sitting at 10:00 AM

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BRIGHT QC
For Review
T20140580 XXXXXXX
41F12203514
DRR - Review



Trial (Part Heard)
T20167121 STEWART Ian
41E12190616
PAPER FILE



NOT BEFORE 02:00 pm
For Trial (No Witnesses)




Note - the For Review is nothing to do with IS - I just left it in to show that it may be a bit after 10am before Judge gets started on IS again.
There's also something lined up for after 2pm, so hopefully it looks as though Judge Bright will have the Jury out by lunchtime ...

 

[Alyce]

I think it has been said, on one of the earlier threads, but for those who missed it ( me included )

SRF was the Defence Counsel for Thomas Mair ( Jo Cox )

That Jury took 1.5 hours to return their verdict - and this was with zero defence evidence

 

[michelle230]

The Crown Court

at St Albans
Daily List for Monday 20 February 2017 at BRICKET ROAD ST ALBANS


Court 1 - sitting at 10:00 AM

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BRIGHT QC
For Review
T20140580 XXXXXXX
41F12203514
DRR - Review



Trial (Part Heard)
T20167121 STEWART Ian
41E12190616
PAPER FILE



NOT BEFORE 02:00 pm
For Trial (No Witnesses)




Note - the For Review is nothing to do with IS - I just left it in to show that it may be a bit after 10am before Judge gets started on IS again.
There's also something lined up for after 2pm, so hopefully it looks as though Judge Bright will have the Jury out by lunchtime ...

Brilliant Alyce - that sounds hopeful x

 

[michelle230]

I think it has been said, on one of the earlier threads, but for those who missed it ( me included )

SRF was the Defence Counsel for Thomas Mair ( Jo Cox )

That Jury took 1.5 hours to return their verdict - and this was with zero defence evidence

Can I retract the "Brilliant" post above :waitasec:

 

[Moll]

I think it has been said, on one of the earlier threads, but for those who missed it ( me included )

SRF was the Defence Counsel for Thomas Mair ( Jo Cox )

That Jury took 1.5 hours to return their verdict - and this was with zero defence evidence

Didn't he plead guilty, Alyce?

 

[Tortoise]

Thanks for informing us about Peter Hyatt, Tortoise. I've watched several of the youtube videos and been very interested, though I do find him a bit slow and repetitive. I thought most of his points with reference to the 911 call and radio interview he was discussing were valid and could see many parallels with IS.

I'd be wary of accepting a statement like 'a science that never fails', though, partly because he's selling his own business and partly because it's clearly not a science but a skill based on experience of how people behave. I couldn't help my hackles rising when he made statements like 'Pronouns predate language' - they don't, obviously. (It also struck me that cultural norms on pronouns are quite variable. I lived for years in a society in West Africa where it was frowned upon for a parent to refer to or address the eldest son, or a wife to refer to or address her husband, by name - they'd be in deep trouble if they ever rang 911 in the USA and Peter Hyatt were to analyse the call!)

I expect you know about forensic linguistics in this country? Jan Svartvik on the Evans case in the late 1960s, Malcolm Coulthard on Derek Bentley and others (too late, often, but still). But I think their work was mainly on identifying authorship rather than guilt. I'm probably completely out of date. Aston University is strong in this area but I don't know how much their work is used by courts.

Yes, I need to clarify that I termed it a science, for want of a better description, I think I should have said skill or method. I wasn't quoting him anyway, just paraphrasing to get to the point of how he demonstrates his success rate in practise by gaining confessions.

I am fascinated in any case, because to me what he says makes total sense, and it's like having a veil lifted sometimes to something I knew but didn't know why.

 

[Cherwell]

Bear in mind that is for a majority verdict. I don't know if it applies to unanimous verdicts. Someone here pointed out that the Peter Tobin jury returned with a guilty verdict in less than 20 minutes.

Yes, it only refers to majority verdicts. I read that a couple of days ago and was slightly bemused until I re-read it and saw the word 'majority'.

I suspect there is no such rule for a unanimous jury. It would be wise for them to spend a little time going over it, so there can be no claim that they didn't deliberate it thoroughly.

They will have had a few opportunities to compare notes, I think. I know they are not to discuss it unless all 12 are present, but ...

If as I suspect the Tobin case was in Scotland, the law is different there so would not give any pointers.

 

[Ironside]

Didn't he plead guilty, Alyce?

He didn't plea anything so got a trial.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

 

[neteditor]

Yes, it only refers to majority verdicts. I read that a couple of days ago and was slightly bemused until I re-read it and saw the word 'majority'.

I suspect there is no such rule for a unanimous jury. It would be wise for them to spend a little time going over it, so there can be no claim that they didn't deliberate it thoroughly.

They will have had a few opportunities to compare notes, I think. I know they are not to discuss it unless all 12 are present, but ...

If as I suspect the Tobin case was in Scotland, the law is different there so would not give any pointers.

It was in England.

In 2009, and for the third time in three years, Peter Tobin was found guilty of murder.
This time it took the jury just 13 minutes to unanimously find him guilty of murdering Dinah McNicol. Indeed, the whole trial at Chelmsford Crown Court lasted a mere three days because Tobin’s defence offered no evidence. (Dinah’s father postponed heart surgery to attend the trial only for it to be suspended because Tobin said he was ill.)

http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/peter-tobin/the-trials

 

[Cherwell]

It was in England.

I'd have lost my bet on that then!