"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Mrs S]

The judge allowed the jury to go home as they were irretrievably split. That doesn’t suggest double figures on either side. In fact quite the opposite.

stating that the jury was irretrievably split is misleading. If that was case they would have been unable to reach a verdict. Also more than likely judge allowed them to go home as they still hadn't reached a verdict and it was end of court day. It happens. Juries can sometimes take several days to reach a verdict in high court trials

[John]

stating that the jury was irretrievably split is misleading. If that was case they would have been unable to reach a verdict. Also more than likely judge allowed them to go home as they still hadn't reached a verdict and it was end of court day. It happens. Juries can sometimes take several days to reach a verdict in high court trials

Its called grasping at straws Mrs S.  Only a jury knows what goes on in a jury room or what the split might be. I personally don't read anything into the judge sending the jury home, it is normal practise at days end.

What would be of interest and is unknown even to Sandra Lean was what the majority verdict was.  Was it 14 to 1 or 8 to 7 or somewhere in between.

The judge asks the jury foreman if they have reached a verdict, unanimous or by majority. He does not ask for the split count and it is never given.

[Mrs S]

Its called grasping at straws Mrs S.  Only a jury knows what goes on in a jury room or what the split might be. I personally don't read anything into the judge sending the jury home, it is normal practise at days end.

What would be of interest and is unknown even to Sandra Lean was what the majority verdict was.  Was it 14 to 1 or 8 to 7 or somewhere in between.

The judge asks the jury foreman if they have reached a verdict, unanimous or by majority. He does not ask for the split count and it is never given.

Exactly John. Thats point I was making. So what was quoted about jury is either misleading or lies. Judges send juries home at end of day is common practice but not in this case apparently there has to be some reason other than its end of day. Those interpretations would be laughable if wasn't such a serious issue

[faithlilly]

stating that the jury was irretrievably split is misleading. If that was case they would have been unable to reach a verdict. Also more than likely judge allowed them to go home as they still hadn't reached a verdict and it was end of court day. It happens. Juries can sometimes take several days to reach a verdict in high court trials

The result was a majority verdict therefore some of the jurors weren’t convinced by the Crown’s case.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The result was a majority verdict therefore some of the jurors weren’t convinced by the Crown’s case.

That’s what a majority verdict means, perhaps you should campaign to make all majority verdicts null and void, assuming none of them is safe in your opinion? 

[faithlilly]

Its called grasping at straws Mrs S.  Only a jury knows what goes on in a jury room or what the split might be. I personally don't read anything into the judge sending the jury home, it is normal practise at days end.

What would be of interest and is unknown even to Sandra Lean was what the majority verdict was.  Was it 14 to 1 or 8 to 7 or somewhere in between.

The judge asks the jury foreman if they have reached a verdict, unanimous or by majority. He does not ask for the split count and it is never given.

The jury were irretrievably split...that is why there was a majority verdict. It’s not clutching at straws, it’s simply a fact.
The cast iron case that many tout here, even though they weren’t privy to all of the evidence, failed to convince some of the jurors who were. As Angelo said earlier, if this case had been tried in England Luke would more than likely be a free man now.

[faithlilly]

Exactly John. Thats point I was making. So what was quoted about jury is either misleading or lies. Judges send juries home at end of day is common practice but not in this case apparently there has to be some reason other than its end of day. Those interpretations would be laughable if wasn't such a serious issue

Was the jury irretrievably split or was there a unanimous verdict?

[Mrs S]

The jury were irretrievably split...that is why there was a majority verdict. It’s not clutching at straws, it’s simply a fact.
The cast iron case that many tout here, even though they weren’t privy to all of the evidence, failed to convince some of the jurors who were. As Angelo said earlier, if this case had been tried in England Luke would more than likely be a free man now.

The jury was privvy to all evidence and they came to majority verdict. Irretrievably split is your words I'm assuming. You have no idea what went on in jury room and that's as it rightly should be. Yes verdict was majority. It might not have been far off a unanimous verdict and not as close a call as you make out

[faithlilly]

The jury was privvy to all evidence and they came to majority verdict. Irretrievably split is your words I'm assuming. You have no idea what went on in jury room and that's as it rightly should be. Yes verdict was majority. It might not have been far off a unanimous verdict and not as close a call as you make our

Or it might have been 7 to 8. No matter what the numbers the jury was irretrievably split. How do I know that...because it was a majority verdict. Some of the jurors were not convinced that the Crown had proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and as Angelo posted earlier if Luke had been an English citizen he would be a free man now.

[Mrs S]

Or it might have been 7 to 8. No matter what the numbers the jury was irretrievably split. How do I know that...because it was a majority verdict. Some of the jurors were not convinced that the Crown had proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and as Angelo posted earlier if Luke had been an English citizen he would be a free man now.

The majority did think it was proven beyond reasonable doubt regardless of whether it was 8/7 or 14/1.  As he was tried in Scotland its Scottish laws that matter not English laws. By your reckoning everyone that was convicted on a majority verdict should be freed. You really are clutching at straws

[Vertigo Swirl]

Or it might have been 7 to 8. No matter what the numbers the jury was irretrievably split. How do I know that...because it was a majority verdict. Some of the jurors were not convinced that the Crown had proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and as Angelo posted earlier if Luke had been an English citizen he would be a free man now.

Not necessarily.  The jury may have been instructed to consider their verdict for longer, or there may have been a re-trial.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Is this true?

Verdict and sentence[edit]
On 21 January 2005, the jury found him guilty after five hours of deliberation

Five hours??!

[faithlilly]

The majority did think it was proven beyond reasonable doubt regardless of whether it was 8/7 or 14/1.  As he was tried in Scotland its Scottish laws that matter not English laws. By your reckoning everyone that was convicted on a majority verdict should be freed. You really are clutching at straws

If have never said that and I don’t know where you got that idea. I was merely pointing out the disparity between the two judicial systems.

Bottom line, if the Crown’s case had been as convincing as some here paint it then a unanimous verdict would have been easily achieved. Quite obviously that wasn’t the case.

[Mrs S]

. It doesn't have to be a unanimous verdict. Majority were convinced beyond reasonable doubt by the crown,  thats what matters in Scottish law therefor your argument is invalid.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If have never said that and I don’t know where you got that idea. I was merely pointing out the disparity between the two judicial systems.

Bottom line, if the Crown’s case had been as convincing as some here paint it then a unanimous verdict would have been easily achieved. Quite obviously that wasn’t the case.

How do you decide which majority verdicts are safe and which ones aren’t, consisdering that some of the jury disagree with the majority?  You can’t have it both ways, picking and choosing which ones you think are unsafe based on a majority rather than unanimous verdict.