11 To 1 Majority Found Him Guilty

[chrissa1]

Graeme Jarman was found guilty yesterday by an 11 to 1 majority of murdering OAP Judith Richardson in Hexham last year.

His DNA was found on a blood stained tissue in her bedroom. An Age UK leaflet was found in her hall with his fingerprints on it. He was caught on CCTV disposing of her handbag in a bin in Newcastle. He was filmed following her to her house from Hexham town centre.

My question: What was the one person to disagree with the rest of the jury thinking?

[jno]

may have thought it proved manslaughter but not murder if the death was not intended.

[bibblebub]

That person was at the trial, heard all the evidence rather than reading newspaper reports and made their own mind up. And that is why is called trial by jury and not mob rule.

[Davethedog]

No doubt they came up with a story and some gullible person thought to give him the benifit of the doubt.

I was on a jury once where a woman was assaulted from behind by another 2 witnesses, forensic evidence, photos of injuries. The accussed said it was all lies and the victim had tripped and a woman on the jury insisted she was not guilty???

[shoota]

I don't know the case but perhaps this person was unsure of whether the defendant was guilty of murder, which would require proof that the defendant intended the victim to die, or that manslaughter would have been more appropriate.
How can one know without having been there for the trial?

[chrissa1]

I'm not knocking the jury system, I'm just wondering how they could come to the conclusion that he didn't do it. He refused to give evidence by the way, which is his right.

[woofgang]

its not that "he didn't do it" Chrissa, Its deciding whether he intended to murder her or whether whatever he did do would be thought buy a reasonable person to have an outcome of the victim ending up dead or whether there was an element of accident.

[Barmaid]

He didn't necessarily come to the conclusion that he didn't do it. It is also possible that the jury member felt that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. His thinking may have been "I think he did it but I am not satisfied that I am sure". In criminal law "the balance of probabilities" is not enough.

[boxtops]

Did the other person say "not guilty" or can you abstain on a jury, if you're not sure?

[chrissa1]

She suffered a minimum of 30 blows to the head with a hammer and had bruises on her arms and hands. That looks like murder to me.

[chrissa1]

There was a 10 to 2 decision at first and the judge sent them back to deliberate.

[chaptazbru]

Me too ....

[EcclesCake]

Was the bloody hammer with the victim's and the assailant's DNA entered as evidence?

Sorry, I don't know the case and haven't read any of the details.

[chrissa1]

The bloody hammer was found by a neighbour in a nearby garden in a bag.

[chaptazbru]

How on earth can you hit an old lady on the head 30 times with a hammer and not expect to kill her ???

[EcclesCake]

I am very deliberately playing devil's advocate here.....

Was the assailant's DNA found on the weapon?

What is to say he was an opportunistic burglar who entered a house where a crime had been committed? (unlikely I know, but playing DA)

[Barmaid]

What happened was this. After a period of deliberation, the Judge called the jury back in and asked them if their was a decision on which they all agreed. At that point, I imagine His Honour was told that there was a 10:2 split. He probably sent them out a few more times before ordering he would accept a majority verdict on which 10 of them agreed. In the deliberations thereafter (they have to deliberate for at least 2 hours after a majority direction), one of the two changed their mind.

[shoota]

Having read a couple of news reports of the case there would appear to be no doubt that he did the deed so what you are left with is proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' that he intended to kill.
Perhaps this one person (it was originally 10 - 2 but the jury was sent back for a re-think and one dissenter changed their minds,) simply didn't think that the level of evidence was sufficient to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that that intent was present when he hit her.
How many differing views do you get on here when you say something that is as plain as day to you?
Don't forget that originally there were two dissenters so perhaps it is not as clear cut as the reports make out.

[Barmaid]

Different people are persuaded by different things. When I was on a jury, we were split 50/50. Now to me, it was plain as day that "guilty" was the correct verdict but we never could resolve it and we ended up being discharged.

[chrissa1]

Thanks for your thoughts guys. I for one think he's guilty as hell and all the evidence was there.
We now find out that he'd been sentenced for a total of 22 years for assault, rape and burglary and served 15 of them. I know that the jury didn't know that though.

[EDDIE51]

He IS guilty he was found guilty by a jury. Only the judge and jury have seen the entire evidence . As has been said as it was originally 10 -2 there must have been some factor in the defence that gave dought as to the verdict of murder.
I was involved in a similar situation, 12 years ago my son was assaulted by a lodger who was temporarily staying with us, it went to trial and he was found guilty by an 11-1 majority . I was somewhat astounded that it was not 100% but it was still a guilty verdict. No one can ever know what was going through the jury members mind. Again, as has been said in the case you mention one member of the jury probably though manslaughter was the correct verdict.