Crime - part deux.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should crime happen

  • Go on then why not.

  • Yes

  • Stfu sucky

  • Tobes and peej welch couple

  • Suck Roy's tits

Results are only viewable after voting.
Treble said:
In 12 Angry Men, Fonda points out to one of the jurors of his experience of having ridges on his nose due to wearing glasses, which suggests the old dear who claims to have witnessed the accused with the knife was bullshitting because she had the same ridges on her nose.

No need for a retrial.
Click to expand...



That's not the reason for the potential retrial. The reason is the juror lying about not being a victim of sexual assault during jury selection. The juror committed perjury to get selected. If they hadn't been asked if they had been sexually assaulted or he had told the truth, there wouldn't be a case for a retrial.

It seems trivial, but if I were on defence I'd want the rules followed. To make it more comparable to your movie Fonda would have had to have signed a document before being selected stating that he had never worn glasses. Obviously no such document was signed in the movie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Treble
Blue Potato said:
That's not the reason for the potential retrial. The reason is the juror lying about not being a victim of sexual assault during jury selection. The juror committed perjury to get selected. If they hadn't been asked if they had been sexually assaulted or he had told the truth, there wouldn't be a case for a retrial.

It seems trivial, but if I were on defence I'd want the rules followed. To make it more comparable to your movie Fonda would have had to have signed a document before being selected stating that he had never worn glasses. Obviously no such document was signed in the movie.
Click to expand...

Ah good point, I didn't realise the juror had lied to get on <ok>

Bangin' film though.
 
I've served on a Jury a few times and in the UK, you are not required to disclose anything, so I can only assume, maybe the law is different in America. However, you are guided by the judge when you adjorn to make a decision. The judges instructions could be what you might want to consider in way of guidance and what you should not consider.

Also you are not allowed to do any internet searches on the case, including any of the defendents, while the trial is ongoing. Nor should you discuss the trial with anyone, that guidance can also include your closest family. If you are found to have not followed the guidance, then you put the trial at risk.

I've not read anything yet, that suggests a mis-trial has taken place, although I'd be interested to know when the juror first went to the media, if this was at anytime during the trial, then yes, that would be a problem. Jurors are taken from all walks of life, so yes, some may have been victims of sexual abuse, I personally don't see a problem with someone considering one's own personal experiences when coming to a decision, whether the law does is to be seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Treble
brb said:
I've not read anything yet, that suggests a mis-trial has taken place,
Click to expand...


As far as I am know, no mistrial has been declared yet. But I was basing my statements on this from the article quoted above.

told the BBC that if Scotty David "lied on his prospective juror questionnaire and denied being the victim of sexual abuse, that would be both perjury and potential grounds for a mistrial".
Click to expand...

The Jury had to sign a document stating if they had been a victim of sexual abuse. (I guess the defence didn't want to exclude them from the jury, assuming them to be more likely to convict). This juror seems to claim he swayed the other jurors by telling them of his own sexual abuse, but on the questionnaire said he wasn't a victim of sexual abuse.

If he lied on his paperwork, he's a fool and he's screwed up the trial and might end up letting a guilty woman go free. Of course maybe he never did any of this and is just lying to the media saying he swayed the other jurors to get kudos and he never was a victim of sexual abuse.

If he's just lying to the media to make himself look good, that's not a crime, that's just being a self promoting twat. However, If he lied to get selected in the jury... That is a crime and unfortunately, possibly, invalidates the result.

Somewhere along the way, the juror lied to someone, and how serious that lie is depends on who he lied to. I guess we'll hear more as time goes on.
 
Blue Potato said:
As far as I am know, no mistrial has been declared yet. But I was basing my statements on this from the article quoted above.



The Jury had to sign a document stating if they had been a victim of sexual abuse. (I guess the defence didn't want to exclude them from the jury, assuming them to be more likely to convict). This juror seems to claim he swayed the other jurors by telling them of his own sexual abuse, but on the questionnaire said he wasn't a victim of sexual abuse.

If he lied on his paperwork, he's a fool and he's screwed up the trial and might end up letting a guilty woman go free. Of course maybe he never did any of this and is just lying to the media saying he swayed the other jurors to get kudos and he never was a victim of sexual abuse.

If he's just lying to the media to make himself look good, that's not a crime, that's just being a self promoting twat. However, If he lied to get selected in the jury... That is a crime and unfortunately, possibly, invalidates the result.

Somewhere along the way, the juror lied to someone, and how serious that lie is depends on who he lied to. I guess we'll hear more as time goes on.
Click to expand...

If the juror has lied to enable themself to get on the jury, then they will be going to jail.
 
brb said:
If the juror has lied to enable themself to get on the jury, then they will be going to jail.
Click to expand...


Googled it. Minimum sentence of one year, plus fines and probation. Up to five years some places.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brb
If you helped to get a sexual abuser locked up as a victim of sexual abuse, why tell the media?
Shut your mouth and be happy with the outcome.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
How the **** is he out?! Are they trying to get a few more charges for him or something?
Click to expand...

They must be confident the controls they have put in place will prevent him from being any danger. Being held before trial is for public protection and isn't meant to be part of any punishment. I don't see how they can be confident though when he has already broken bail conditions before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PleaseNotPoll
Joelinton's Right Foot said:
They must be confident the controls they have put in place will prevent him from being any danger. Being held before trial is for public protection and isn't meant to be part of any punishment. I don't see how they can be confident though when he has already broken bail conditions before.
Click to expand...
Man City really do need a left-back, though.
 
brb said:
Mendy freed on bail, bit surprised by that.
Click to expand...

Don't shoot the messager but it appears that the reason this is taking so long is because, it as been proven that some of the accusers have been lying and there is no evidence to make any of the charges stick, hence his solicitor getting him bail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sucky and brb
Gessa said:
Don't shoot the messager but it appears that the reason this is taking so long is because, it as been proven that some of the accusers have been lying and there is no evidence to make any of the charges stick, hence his solicitor getting him bail.
Click to expand...
I heard he shat in some birds mouf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back