GUILTY UK - Sadie Hartley, 60, murdered, Helmshore, Lancs, 14 Jan 2016 #1

[JerricaBenton]

Any guesses for when a decision will be returned? I think maybe by 4pm today!

 

[Alyce]

I'm with you on a verdict today Jerrica. In fact I am thinking about 2pm !! ( ever hopeful ).

 

[Alyce]

[h=1]Eleven* jurors have retired to consider their verdicts in the trial of two women accused of murdering a Lancashire business woman.[/h]
[FONT="][B]The two defendants are alleged to have plotted Miss Hartley’s death for 17 months before she was zapped with a stun gun and fatally stabbed. The prosecution allege that Sarah Williams wielded the knife during the attack because wanted to ‘get rid’ of her love rival - they also claim Willams received help from Katrina Walsh every step of the way leading up to the crime. [/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#505050][FONT="]Sadie Hartley suffered 51 injuries in total.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Sarah Williams denies any knowledge of a plot to kill the mum-of-two, which is detailed in diaries written by Katrina Walsh. Sarah suggests she must have been set up by her co-accused. Katrina Walsh chose not to give evidence during the trial but barristers speaking on her behalf defend the diary entries as fantasies, which were never intended to be carried out.

<modsnip>

[/FONT]
[FONT]

http://www.2br.co.uk/news/local-new...r-verdicts-in-the-sadie-hartley-murder-trial/[/FONT][/FONT]

I would be
1. YES
2. YES

3. has to be no as she wasnt there

4. is interesting - I would say yes on that one as Walsh certainly knew Sadie was going to be killed

5. YES
6. No, because I think 5 is the higher charge

 

[Tortoise]

I was a bit confused by the questions at first. But now I realise why.

I had thought well what if the jury thinks KW stabbed Sadie? What then for SW? And it would have to be an acquittal for SW, because there is no option there for KW murdering and SW assisting (reverse roles). if they thought it was KW on the cctv and SW had not been identified, so say they couldn't be sure it was SW, it could be an unidentified 3rd party. I think.

There are only options there for SW murdering with KW assisting with murder or manslaughter, or KW murdering.

 

[Tortoise]

What's keeping them? lol.

 

[Alyce]

Perhaps they're going to have lunch and chat about it......but seriously, I do hope none of them have any doubts or have believed KWs I was only in a game story

 

[Coldpizza]

Friendly reminder :

Copyright 10% Rule

 

[Tortoise]

If anyone wants to read the 6 questions given to the jury see my earlier link to 2br.co.uk report.

 

[Tortoise]

Jury coming back in. I've been told it is just to ask a question.

https://twitter.com/AbanQuaynorLT

 

[cottonweaver]

I was a bit confused by the questions at first. But now I realise why.

I had thought well what if the jury thinks KW stabbed Sadie? What then for SW? And it would have to be an acquittal for SW, because there is no option there for KW murdering and SW assisting (reverse roles). if they thought it was KW on the cctv and SW had not been identified, so say they couldn't be sure it was SW, it could be an unidentified 3rd party. I think.

There are only options there for SW murdering with KW assisting with murder or manslaughter, or KW murdering.

BIB-which questions T? Been looking for his jury questions.

 

[cottonweaver]

If anyone wants to read the 6 questions given to the jury see my earlier link to 2br.co.uk report.

scratch that - Thankyou, they were snipped, I will go to the Link , cheers

 

[Tortoise]

BIB-which questions T? Been looking for his jury questions.

in this report http://www.2br.co.uk/news/local-new...r-verdicts-in-the-sadie-hartley-murder-trial/

 

[Alyce]

Jury coming back in. I've been told it is just to ask a question.

https://twitter.com/AbanQuaynorLT

Ahh, that is not good imo ..

 

[Tortoise]

Qstion about a witness who wasn't called by prosecution or defence Judge tells them make verdict on evidence they've seen

https://twitter.com/AbanQuaynorLT

 

[Tortoise]

probably the neighbour who saw the woman leaving the house? what do you think?

 

[Alyce]

I wonder............didnt our local lady - krmh - say that after SW was * allegedly * abused at age 13, she then went on to ruin the alleged attacker's life -she wondered if this person was going to be called, so could it have been him ?
It did seem slightly strange that the alleged abuse was mentioned in court as though it was going to have some bearing on the case, even if only as mitigation for SW, but then it was not mentioned again ......so perhaps this person was on the witness list.

 

[Tortoise]

We had this on the jury I was on. It's puzzling when you know there are witnesses who haven't been used. You tend to want to think well why? And you're not allowed to speculate or make assumptions about that obviously, but it is tempting to.

 

[Alyce]

Strange that the court does not tell the Jury , before they go out, that X witness is no longer being called and give them the reason why. Would remove the problem of Jury rechecking.

Having said that, I am slightly worried that, after approx 2 hours of deliberation, they are only just at the point of wondering about a witness who was not called.

 

[Tortoise]

In our case it was a third party who had shared a taxi with the pair right after the murder, so knew what they would have been talking about. It was very frustrating.

 

[Tortoise]

Q2 is text Williams sent in Nov 2013 about having a tracker Prosecution don't know who it was sent to or who it refers to
Judge says he is not going to take a verdict from jury until after lunch at the earliest. That will be 2pm.

https://twitter.com/AbanQuaynorLT