YEEHAH, the Redhead is goin' down!

All cleared except Coulson, he must be smarting a little.

I wouldn't mind listening to his voice mail right now!
 
plasmahal said:
The jury were shown the facts!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Well I meant in seriousness. On the trial I served as juror, we also had seven defendants and two of them were "well they probably did it, but there's no evidence" and so they rightfully walked. The QC explained this as positive evidence vs negative evidence. Positive evidence is evidence something did happen, one way or the other, and negative evidence is no evidence that something happened, one way or the other. I.e. it's not "evidence of guilt" vs "evidence of innocence"

I wonder if Ms Brooks is in the same boat, and there is just negative evidence, or if there was actually positive evidence she didn't have knowledge.
 
Great, we can finally put this whole boring story behind us, and reclaim the word hacking to actually be mildly skill related. The term phone hacking is an insult to script kiddies everywhere.
 
I would like to see a Not Proven verdict brought into effect in England just to allow a Jury to say "we think they did it but there's not enough evidence to convict".

Though I do like the idea of removing juries and leaving all this to judges who, one would like to believe, would be dispassionate (or more likely totally out of touch with some parts of our media who'll only be happy when they can try people in their papers).
 
No thanks. It brings nothing to have the "Not Proven" verdict. It's equivalent to having a "maybe, maybe not" which undermines the entire trial. Did they, or did they not, in your (the jury's) opinion, commit the crime they are accused of? That's all there is, and that's all there should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom