Here's one 'You have no idea and saying that if your a witness and straight in and straight out shows that.' - You're wrong to suggest I'm wrong. Crown court... Magistrates court... The witness will sit outside the trial, will be called in by a member of the court staff, will give their evidence, and will then leave the trial. The reason why they don't have witnesses sat in trials is because if all your witnesses hear what one another have to say then it could bias the trial.
Courts do deal with a lot more than criminal cases, the issue is you are talking here about a criminal case. I have knowledge on criminal trials, you wouldn't ever hear me talking authoritatively about other court proceedings, e.g. family courts, because I have no experience of them. If you have experience of other lines of court work, then that's fine, and I agree it makes you more informed about things than most on here, but equally a lot of what you said earlier was untrue. For example, you spoke about barristers intentionally misleading in meetings you'd been in iirc. Now that might be true in whatever you do, but to surmise from that that in a criminal court case a barrister is going to intentionally mislead the court about information discussed at meetings in which they were present is simply incorrect, it doesn't really happen and it's stretching things to think a QC would do it in such a high profile case.
From what you're saying your line of court work isn't criminal, but in which case saying 'in effect I have been the prosecution' doesn't make sense - in what context do you have a prosecution outside of a criminal trial?
I worked part time in a law firm for three years. In crown court cases my job was basically to sit behind the barrister for the duration of the trial, make sure they had papers when they needed them, make notes of what was said, sit in on meetings with clients and note who said what etc. It wasn't high responsibility by any stretch of the imagination because as you can guess it was primarily just making notes but it meant I was present throughout proceedings and during all the meetings. So although I wouldn't pretend to have anywhere near the knowledge of a lawyer, or the like, I do have a more than adequate understanding of criminal trails and what goes on in them.
The issue I have with the posts you made in this thread is that you were speaking quite authoritatively about how you understood court process and the like. You then used your experience in what seem clearly not to be criminal cases, and certainly not crown court criminal cases, to try and construct arguments which you so happened to be wrong on. I've intentionally avoided bringing up my experience in work because to a large extent it is meaningless, either I am right about something or I am wrong, so saying 'and what I say is definitely true because XYZ I know the court system so well etc.' adds nothing. You tried to beef your posts up by saying what experience you had when it doesn't really seem like it would be relevant to a case like this. That's what I took exception to, it wasn't meant to be personal.
