A criminal case where you think the guilty person is innocent.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 45378
  • Start date


I was jury foreman in a case of a young man killing his mam. I was the only one who thought he was innocent and after 2 days deliberation I'd only convinced 2 others. The judge would have accepted 11/1 but I'd talked it into 9/3. He got a re-trial........guilty.🤣
 
BIG MAL said:
I was jury foreman in a case of a young man killing his mam. I was the only one who thought he was innocent and after 2 days deliberation I'd only convinced 2 others. The judge would have accepted 11/1 but I'd talked it into 9/3. He got a re-trial........guilty.🤣
Click to expand...
Funny as fuck that like. Well done.
 
haway said:
I try not to have strong opinions on criminal cases. It strikes me that in a major trial a jury would be presented with weeks of evidence. How many people think they know the answer after reading a Wikipedia page or watching a short documentary?
Click to expand...

Web Sleuthing seems to be a popular phenomenon these days. Loads of people having an opinion based off what they read on the Internet and being certain of miscarriages of justice despite a jury of peers listening to all of the evidence and reaching a different conclusion. That's bad enough, but they often feel their opinion on ballistics is as valid as an expert or that their knowledge of the law surpasses lawyers and judges. It's bizarre.
 
Flash Gordon said:
Web Sleuthing seems to be a popular phenomenon these days. Loads of people having an opinion based off what they read on the Internet and being certain of miscarriages of justice despite a jury of peers listening to all of the evidence and reaching a different conclusion. That's bad enough, but they often feel their opinion on ballistics is as valid as an expert or that their knowledge of the law surpasses lawyers and judges. It's bizarre.
Click to expand...
Don’t get me wrong, I think there are often miscarriages of justice, and the justice system is probably a lot more fallible than people realise. But the idea that a boomer watching the latest Netflix doc is the one to crack it seems bizarre.

My feeling is there are a lot of rich and powerful people who aren’t in prison who should be, and there are a lot of mentally ill, poor or otherwise marginalised people in prison who shouldn’t be.
 
Goat Eyes said:
Foxy Noxy, guilty of something. The McCanns, guilty of something. Bamber, guilty of everything.

Harold Shipman, innocent and only doing his job IMO.
Click to expand...
“Has the duty come to a decision?”

“It has, your honour. We, the dury, hereby find the defendant guilty on all counts of something.”

“Thank you madam spokewoman of the dury. You are dismissed for sentencing.”
 
haway said:
I try not to have strong opinions on criminal cases. It strikes me that in a major trial a jury would be presented with weeks of evidence. How many people think they know the answer after reading a Wikipedia page or watching a short documentary?
Click to expand...
What about a Netflix one.....
 
Boinger said:
When Massingbird KC got Oscar Wilde imprisoned.

Big, bearded, bonking, butch Oscar. The terror of the ladies. 114 illegitimate children, world heavyweight boxing champion and author of the best-selling pamphlet "Why I Like To Do It With Girls." And Massingbird had him sent down for being a whoopsie.

;)
Click to expand...
Blackadder😎
 
haway said:
I try not to have strong opinions on criminal cases. It strikes me that in a major trial a jury would be presented with weeks of evidence. How many people think they know the answer after reading a Wikipedia page or watching a short documentary?
Click to expand...
In the case with the Guildford 4, the appeal judges threw out the convictions because it was the government/prosecution withheld critical evidence from the trail.
I don't think its as simple as that
 

Back
Top