Author Topic: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?  (Read 3944 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« on: August 26, 2012, 03:37:19 PM »
This is a topic which raises its head from time to time.  Some people would like to believe that Jeremy was a hairsbreadth away from being a free man.  My own opinion is that he would have faced a retrial had another jury member dissented and voted not guilty.

I notice that weight is being given to the fact that Julie Mugford had a deal with a national newspaper and this would have in some way affect the outcome.  Had they known that Jeremy had a potentially much larger deal would that also have affected the outcome?

Would the fact that the evidence in relation to the blood in the silencer have been all the more significant if that original jury had known that DNA from Sheila was actually found in the silencer as well as her blood?

We can all wishful think until the cows come home but in the final analysis Jeremy was found guilty.  Maybe had he stood up and gave evidence things would have been oh so different?
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 03:47:12 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Joanne

Re: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2012, 03:47:15 PM »
Why is it that in English law a 10-2 is needed to be a majority? Just reading something it says it has to be 10-2 but a majority is over 6 (7-5, 8-4 etc) or 6 all for a hung. I don't understand the logic.
I think it'd have been better for a 12-0 verdict but I don't think that would ever happen in this case based on the evidence in 1985 and DNA not being available to a court. I wonder why, following the Colin Pitchfork trial, the evidence wasn't resubmitted or do they have to wait until an appeal is launched?

Offline John

Re: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2012, 03:50:20 PM »
Why is it that in English law a 10-2 is needed to be a majority? Just reading something it says it has to be 10-2 but a majority is over 6 (7-5, 8-4 etc) or 6 all for a hung. I don't understand the logic.
I think it'd have been better for a 12-0 verdict but I don't think that would ever happen in this case based on the evidence in 1985 and DNA not being available to a court. I wonder why, following the Colin Pitchfork trial, the evidence wasn't resubmitted or do they have to wait until an appeal is launched?

How do you think those of us who have been convicted in Scotland feel where anything as low as 8-7 is accepted as a guilty verdict?

To put it another way, had I been tried in England, Wales or N Ireland I would not have been found guilty so where is the justice in that?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Mervyn

Re: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2012, 03:54:33 PM »
Utterly disgusting mate.  We are all supposed to be ruled by the same monarch and one who presides over the criminal justice system.  Having two tiers of justice within the UK is scandalous imo.  Someone should raise an action with the European Court since it is illegal for a State to have a two-tiered justice system.



Why is it that in English law a 10-2 is needed to be a majority? Just reading something it says it has to be 10-2 but a majority is over 6 (7-5, 8-4 etc) or 6 all for a hung. I don't understand the logic.
I think it'd have been better for a 12-0 verdict but I don't think that would ever happen in this case based on the evidence in 1985 and DNA not being available to a court. I wonder why, following the Colin Pitchfork trial, the evidence wasn't resubmitted or do they have to wait until an appeal is launched?

How do you think those of us who have been convicted in Scotland feel where anything as low as 8-7 is accepted as a guilty verdict?

To put it another way, had I been tried in England, Wales or N Ireland I would not have been found guilty so where is the justice in that?

Offline John

Re: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2012, 03:55:33 PM »
Utterly disgusting mate.  We are all supposed to be ruled by the same monarch and one who presides over the criminal justice system.  Having two tiers of justice within the UK is scandalous imo.  Someone should raise an action with the European Court since it is illegal for a State to have a two-tiered justice system.



Why is it that in English law a 10-2 is needed to be a majority? Just reading something it says it has to be 10-2 but a majority is over 6 (7-5, 8-4 etc) or 6 all for a hung. I don't understand the logic.
I think it'd have been better for a 12-0 verdict but I don't think that would ever happen in this case based on the evidence in 1985 and DNA not being available to a court. I wonder why, following the Colin Pitchfork trial, the evidence wasn't resubmitted or do they have to wait until an appeal is launched?

How do you think those of us who have been convicted in Scotland feel where anything as low as 8-7 is accepted as a guilty verdict?

To put it another way, had I been tried in England, Wales or N Ireland I would not have been found guilty so where is the justice in that?

I have and I believe Kevin/Margot posted the press report about it a few days back on the blue forum!  The one where I am suing the Scottish Government for €7 million.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 03:57:15 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Joanne

Re: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2012, 04:11:15 PM »
I have read and someone else did tell me the Scottish justice system is about as corrupt as it can be.
8-7 - I'd probably collapse.

When you win your case, can you do me a favour please?


Just before you post about it, give me a ring so I can log on and watch the chaos on the blue forum please.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 04:14:47 PM by Joanne »

Offline John

Re: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2012, 04:18:08 PM »
I have read and someone else did tell me the Scottish justice system is about as corrupt as it can be.
8-7 - I'd probably collapse.

When you win your case, can you do me a favour please?


Just before you post about it, give me a ring so I can log on and watch the chaos on the blue forum please.

But Joanne, don't you know what the responses will be already?   8(0(*



A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Joanne

Re: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2012, 04:27:22 PM »
Yes, it will be 'how unjust', 'what type of world do we live in', 'Disgusting' or on the otherhand 'I always said he was not guilty/innocent' and they will totally forget their name is 'The Jeremy Bamber forum'.

Offline John

Re: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2012, 04:29:25 PM »
I have read and someone else did tell me the Scottish justice system is about as corrupt as it can be.
8-7 - I'd probably collapse.

When you win your case, can you do me a favour please?


Just before you post about it, give me a ring so I can log on and watch the chaos on the blue forum please.

They harp on about any verdict being beyond reasonable doubt so how can this possibly be when up to 7 jurors don't even count. It suits the lawyers in Scotland to have a legal system such as it is, corrupt like most of them!
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

Re: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2012, 04:40:53 PM »
Yes, it will be 'how unjust', 'what type of world do we live in', 'Disgusting' or on the otherhand 'I always said he was not guilty/innocent' and they will totally forget their name is 'The Jeremy Bamber forum'.

 8@??)(
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

jackiepreece

  • Guest
Re: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2012, 04:54:07 PM »
How do you think those of us who have been convicted in Scotland feel where anything as low as 8-7 is accepted as a guilty verdict?

To put it another way, had I been tried in England, Wales or N Ireland I would not have been found guilty so where is the justice in that?




I had no idea!!!

Offline Joanne

Re: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2012, 07:56:33 PM »
People wo serve whole life sentances, what happens when they get old? Do they stay in the same prison or is there an OAP prison? There's only been Ronnie (I think) who I've known to be old in prison.

Duane

  • Guest
Re: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2012, 08:26:59 PM »
When they grow old they cart them off to Whitemoor. In the basement there is a processing factory. They turn them into Fray Bentos Pies, Pukka Pies, Steak & Kidney puddings. The rest goes to kebab shops and market halls

Dillon

  • Guest
Re: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2012, 08:46:03 PM »
People wo serve whole life sentances, what happens when they get old? Do they stay in the same prison or is there an OAP prison? There's only been Ronnie (I think) who I've known to be old in prison.

I beleive that only a few prisons are geared up to provide adequate facilities for older prisoners. Norwich has a special unit for disabled older prisoners, for example. The proportion of older prisoners including those over 80 is increasing and obviously many will have significant health and mobility problems. It is said that older prisoners tend to have a biological age 10 years greater then their peers outside prison. IMO whatever their crimes, older prisoners should be treated humanely according to their individual needs.

Offline Joanne

Re: Was the 10-2 majority verdict significant?
« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2012, 08:56:13 PM »
Thank you Dillon, I can imagine they do have a shorter life.
When I was typing it struck me that a lot seem to have either committed suicide or died young.