Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[faithlilly]

Which brings us back to intent. He didn't just randomly, wildly attack, without need to handle that knife differently. Clearly a purpose to his intended disfigurement of certain areas.

Then bring a larger knife….if disfigurement of that particular area was the murderer’s intent.

I notice you failed to reply to my last question about the judge’s charge. Perhaps now might be a good time?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Then bring a larger knife….if disfigurement of that particular area was the murderer’s intent.

I notice you failed to reply to my last question about the judge’s charge. Perhaps now might be a good time?

Why you’re waiting on that, perhaps now would also be a good time for you to answer the numerous questions I’ve put to you on a different part of the forum in thr last couple of months that you repeatedly ignored…?

[Joe Blogs]

Why you’re waiting on that, perhaps now would also be a good time for you to answer the numerous questions I’ve put to you on a different part of the forum in thr last couple of months that you repeatedly ignored…?

What questions would they be now, Vertigo?
Can you list them?

[Joe Blogs]

Then bring a larger knife….if disfigurement of that particular area was the murderer’s intent.

I notice you failed to reply to my last question about the judge’s charge. Perhaps now might be a good time?

Do you think there is evidence that the verdict was 8-7 , Faith?

[Parky41]

What questions would they be now, Vertigo?
Can you list them?

Is one forgetting which ego they are playing?

[Vertigo Swirl]

What questions would they be now, Vertigo?
Can you list them?

Not relevant to this specific discussion but Faithlily has a habit of demanding people answer her questions whilst repeatedly ignoring questions put to her.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Do you think there is evidence that the verdict was 8-7 , Faith?

There’s about the same amount of evidence for that as there is for the verdict being 14-1 imo.

[Joe Blogs]

There’s about the same amount of evidence for that as there is for the verdict being 14-1 imo.

I see, Vertigo! I wouldn't know!

[Joe Blogs]

Is one forgetting which ego they are playing?

No egos here, Peter!
I'm about as down to earth, modest and respectful to others as its possible to be my friend!

[faithlilly]

Do you think there is evidence that the verdict was 8-7 , Faith?

I don’t think there’s evidence per se Joe but I think we can extrapolate from the quickness of the verdict that it was close. Jury deliberations lasted 5 hours, most of that on the first day. We can extrapolate from that therefore that there was less than 8 jury members who thought Luke guilty at close of play. Within a very short time on the following morning the verdict came in. This leaves little time for a large number of jury members to have changed their vote. Therefore it’s entirely possible that the guilty vote was very close.

[faithlilly]

I see, Vertigo! I wouldn't know!

Best you don’t Joe.

[Kenmair]

Therefore it’s entirely possible that the guilty vote was very close.

Lord Nimmo asked for a strong majority and beyond reasonable doubt. Probably something like 10-5 at least. Very unlikely it was 8-7 or 14-1. The question should be, why have numerous appeals only been lodged on technical points? And why has LM been refused parole? If there was a slightest doubt he would be released like many similar murderers who completed their prison tariff.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don’t think there’s evidence per se Joe but I think we can extrapolate from the quickness of the verdict that it was close. Jury deliberations lasted 5 hours, most of that on the first day. We can extrapolate from that therefore that there was less than 8 jury members who thought Luke guilty at close of play. Within a very short time on the following morning the verdict came in. This leaves little time for a large number of jury members to have changed their vote. Therefore it’s entirely possible that the guilty vote was very close.

No you can’t extrapolate that. Equally It could have been 14-1 after 5 hours and they took it over to the next day hoping to get a unanimous verdict and as soon as it became apparent that one stubborn juror was sticking to their guns they decided to return a majority verdict.

[Joe Blogs]

I don’t think there’s evidence per se Joe but I think we can extrapolate from the quickness of the verdict that it was close. Jury deliberations lasted 5 hours, most of that on the first day. We can extrapolate from that therefore that there was less than 8 jury members who thought Luke guilty at close of play. Within a very short time on the following morning the verdict came in. This leaves little time for a large number of jury members to have changed their vote. Therefore it’s entirely possible that the guilty vote was very close.

Ah! Gotya Faith!
Thank you very much for explaining!

[faithlilly]

Lord Nimmo asked for a strong majority and beyond reasonable doubt. Probably something like 10-5 at least. Very unlikely it was 8-7 or 14-1. The question should be, why have numerous appeals only been lodged on technical points? And why has LM been refused parole? If there was a slightest doubt he would be released like many similar murderers who completed their prison tariff.

I’m not sure that you read my post from a couple of days ago but this is exactly what the judge said.

‘Your verdict can be given unanimously or by a majority, but if the verdict is to be guilty there must be at least eight of your number in favour of that view, before any guilty verdict can be returned. That of course is an overall majority out of fifteen. You cannot convict unless there are eight of you in favour of a guilty verdict. If you don’t have eight votes for a guilty verdict then you must acquit on that charge.’

The judge asked for no more than a simple majority. Nowhere does he mention a ‘strong majority’ because there is no need. 8 jurors were enough to bring back a guilty verdict…and it goes without saying that the jurors who voted guilty must be convinced that the prosecution proved the case ‘ beyond reasonable doubt’.

From your first question can I assume that you think the jury count being close is a ground for an appeal? It isn’t.

To your second question I have no idea but it will certainly have nothing to do with how the jury voted.