Crosswords1 min ago
Bekka And Andy, And Co....the Fun Starts Today !
http://
Apparently the trial is going to last until well into the New Year. As its only late October now, how can it last so long ?
Apparently the trial is going to last until well into the New Year. As its only late October now, how can it last so long ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Oliver St John Gogarty described a sweepstake in Dublin (of course) at the Mater, for the first death after a consultants ward round.
Others in the insurance industry had awards for the most far flung death of the month, and strangest cause
all these were suppressed by seniors who felt that the dignity of whatever had been outraged.
Others in the insurance industry had awards for the most far flung death of the month, and strangest cause
all these were suppressed by seniors who felt that the dignity of whatever had been outraged.
Fred - thank you. Thats really interesting ...they have to have some fun I suppose but its nice to know they are human!. Some barristers are characters. I've been on Jury service twice and the person who was our foreman in one of the cases had coughing fits all through and we had to stop alot- it was funny though as all the others kept looking at eachother as if "not again" -it took a long time with all the breaks (it was probably nerves). He wanted that job as foreman though. It the power probably so I can understand betting on them.
Coke Tulip, as Peter Pedant says, doctors retain a sense of somewhat macabre humour. So would I, if I was dealing with life and death, much of it dependent on my decisions. The Bar isn't now concerned with life and death decisions in criminal cases, but it is always haunted by failure. After all, the next question you ask, or the next decision, could get somebody wrongly convicted or wrongly acquitted. In any event, it could result in the client not getting the best service they deserve, whether that client be the CPS or some burglar, and that's what the public deserves too. The most worried barrister you'll ever see is the one who got the result but who thinks he got it in spite of himself. So they affect not to take it too seriously. Defence counsel for Ruth Ellis had to watch when she was asked only one question by prosecuting counsel. Her answer got her hanged. He had to decide whether to ask questions in re-examination, when you try to repair the damage inflicted by prosecuting counsel's cross-examination. He stayed silent. Now, that's a decision which followed him the rest of his life. Modern counsel are spared that, with death following, but they still feel similar pressure.
And how was your foreman selected? I always wondered about that decision !
And how was your foreman selected? I always wondered about that decision !
From what I remember - the court clerk (in his pre selection talk ) told us what would happen and names would be called out for the Jury for a particular case....this happened and explained then that from us 12 - they would need one to do the talking on behalf of this Jury. Before he had a chance to finish ..this person put himself forward (volunteered) and if the other Jury members were happy with that - he said he'd be happy to do it. The clerk gave us a chance to have a coffee and discuss amongst ourselves and decide and see if anyone else wanted to do it . Someone else was also interested but he gave in to the other guy & opted out before the group had voted. The majority were chuffed that someone else was doing it as they really didn't want to be in the spotlight. The foreman isn't supposed to influence but I guess they are seen as a bit of a lead and some Jury members will look up to them for this reason- its only my view.
That Ruth Ellis story is chilling Fred. Poor lawyer. I read the book about her. You get the impression that psychology is very important in court but things go against the best. I did watch alot of Kavanagh QC -- never ask a Q you dont already know the ans to! I really dont know how anyone can fully prepare for cross examination. Regarding the Jury - a few were somewhere else all through the court process in our case and couldn't care less how things went so it is abit scary - you dont know who the Jury are really. You are unlikely to have a Jury of spiritualists so that might not be so good for a witness who is a spiritualist.
I haven't looked into it yet but I'd like to find out more about the Boston Strangler and his trial.
That Ruth Ellis story is chilling Fred. Poor lawyer. I read the book about her. You get the impression that psychology is very important in court but things go against the best. I did watch alot of Kavanagh QC -- never ask a Q you dont already know the ans to! I really dont know how anyone can fully prepare for cross examination. Regarding the Jury - a few were somewhere else all through the court process in our case and couldn't care less how things went so it is abit scary - you dont know who the Jury are really. You are unlikely to have a Jury of spiritualists so that might not be so good for a witness who is a spiritualist.
I haven't looked into it yet but I'd like to find out more about the Boston Strangler and his trial.
Prosecuting counsel Christmas Humphties: "When you fired the revolver at close range into the body of David Blakely, did you intend to kill him?"
Ruth Ellis, defended by Melford Stephenson: "It is obvious that I intended to kill him"
When the client gives an answer like that, it is difficult to know what to do. The first thing is that this line of questioning should have been rehearsed with the client. The client would then , with luck, avoid giving that reply. She might have answered simply "I don't know" or "No" or "I don't know what I was thinking" or "It went off by accident" any of which might have saved her. As it was, it was difficult to think of any question in re-examination. You could ask "What did you mean by that reply?" and hope that the client would backtrack or at least say something which would make her answer suggest a moment of madness and a crime passionel, with the chance of a reprieve from the death sentence.
Christmas Humphries, prosecuting, became, or was already,a Buddhist, and was the mildest man you could ever meet. Melford Stephenson, defending, was quite the reverse. He became famous, or notorious,as the toughest, and toughest sentencer , of all the judges. It is said that, as a boy, he learned and often recited the words judges used in sentencing someone to death. He retired to a house which he named Truncheons, which seemed appropriate. He was perceived as more for the side that had truncheons as standard issue than for that of the people arrested.
Ruth Ellis, defended by Melford Stephenson: "It is obvious that I intended to kill him"
When the client gives an answer like that, it is difficult to know what to do. The first thing is that this line of questioning should have been rehearsed with the client. The client would then , with luck, avoid giving that reply. She might have answered simply "I don't know" or "No" or "I don't know what I was thinking" or "It went off by accident" any of which might have saved her. As it was, it was difficult to think of any question in re-examination. You could ask "What did you mean by that reply?" and hope that the client would backtrack or at least say something which would make her answer suggest a moment of madness and a crime passionel, with the chance of a reprieve from the death sentence.
Christmas Humphries, prosecuting, became, or was already,a Buddhist, and was the mildest man you could ever meet. Melford Stephenson, defending, was quite the reverse. He became famous, or notorious,as the toughest, and toughest sentencer , of all the judges. It is said that, as a boy, he learned and often recited the words judges used in sentencing someone to death. He retired to a house which he named Truncheons, which seemed appropriate. He was perceived as more for the side that had truncheons as standard issue than for that of the people arrested.
I'm pretty sure Goddard L J did, sandy ! Even if that's a vile rumour, it has the ring of truth about it. As a judge he did display a certain humour. He was in a case where a man was prosecuted for breaching one of those numerous regulations created in wartime and which sometimes did not make sense in their application by zealous jobsworths. Counsel asked something like " Are you saying you would break Regulation 97, subsection C, of the Defence (Production of widgets) Regulations , as amended?". The defendant said "Yes, if there was a profit in it !", whereupon Goddard lent over to the defendant and said quietly "And quite right, too!". The defendant was acquitted.
//I don't really mind how long they take, as long as they get the b*st*rds in the end//
I see you are not a fan of British justice then. They are innocent until proven guilty. As the trial is so long it is clear the evidence is not clear cut so they may well be not guilty. but you have hung them anyway. Oh well.
I see you are not a fan of British justice then. They are innocent until proven guilty. As the trial is so long it is clear the evidence is not clear cut so they may well be not guilty. but you have hung them anyway. Oh well.
mikey, yes. Brooks is certain to get a stiff sentence. Corrupting police or others with a duty is worth a few years on its own. Both defendants are on for phone hacking. I am only aware of one example of that and the sentence. Embarrassingly, I visited the man's house once and he demonstrated how easily he could find anyone's phone number, ex-directory or not. I did not ask him how he had this facility, but I had an idea. A couple of years later he got 5 years for interfering with telephone communications, which sounds akin to hacking, and for getting BT engineers to give him information and helping him.
But the press or elements always did such things. We had a friend who worked for a Sunday paper, now closed. We moved house. We got a call from him, on the new line, when we'd only just entered the house. Not odd, but we ourselves hadn't yet been told what the new number on that line was. He knew before we did, and he made a joke of the fact.
But the press or elements always did such things. We had a friend who worked for a Sunday paper, now closed. We moved house. We got a call from him, on the new line, when we'd only just entered the house. Not odd, but we ourselves hadn't yet been told what the new number on that line was. He knew before we did, and he made a joke of the fact.
They may be innocent until proven guilty but they are presumed to be guilty, otherwise they wouldn't be facing serious charges in a court of law. They will have employed some very clever and very expensive lawyers, but I have every faith in British justice getting it right in the end.
About a year ago, every time you turned the telly on, we were inundated with video of a smirking Beka, arm in arm with the Aussie Toad.
Time will tell ymb, but if this lot isn't guilty, then I will eat my hat and yours.
About a year ago, every time you turned the telly on, we were inundated with video of a smirking Beka, arm in arm with the Aussie Toad.
Time will tell ymb, but if this lot isn't guilty, then I will eat my hat and yours.
Thanks Fred, for your illuminating thoughts, re sentencing.
For the 1st 25 years of my working life, I was a BT Engineer, and I can assure you that the quickest way to discover an ex-directory telephone number, was to have a contaact in BT. A colleague of mine lost his job for obtaining the new number of the wife of a recently divorced friend of his. I can honestly say that in all of those 25 years, this was an almost an isolated incident, although I am not so naive to suppose it didn't go on behind my back and without my knowledge.
Its a bit different now, of course, as Mobile numbers are more difficult to obtain, but still easy if you know how.
For the 1st 25 years of my working life, I was a BT Engineer, and I can assure you that the quickest way to discover an ex-directory telephone number, was to have a contaact in BT. A colleague of mine lost his job for obtaining the new number of the wife of a recently divorced friend of his. I can honestly say that in all of those 25 years, this was an almost an isolated incident, although I am not so naive to suppose it didn't go on behind my back and without my knowledge.
Its a bit different now, of course, as Mobile numbers are more difficult to obtain, but still easy if you know how.
Coke Tulip, you mention not asking a question in cross-examination when you don't know the answer. Sound advice for beginners, who have a distressing tendency to ask unthinkingly, more in hope than expectation if they think at all, but the statement needs refinement. Older hands ask questions when they are aware that they don't know the answer but they do know, whatever the answer is, the logical options open to the witness are not damaging and will likely open a line which advances their case. And sometimes they just take a chance; the answer can be surprisingly helpful and, if it isn't, they can gloss over the unhelpful reply.
Eddie, Telegraph and Times readers not selected as jurors? You are thinking of challenges by defence counsel or 'standing by' by prosecuting counsel; 'standing by' because prosecuting counsel said "Stand by for the Crown" which means that the juror will be sworn if there are no others available after the defence have made their challenges to remove potential jurors altogether.
These "challenges without cause" have been abolished.
When they existed, there was a myth that anyone carrying a Telegraph and looking respectable would be challenged. Not so. What defence counsel were really after was as big a mix as possible, and they would pool their resources of challenges; they had a limited number, formerly seven , latterly three, each; to that end. That way, if one exhausted his challenges, someone else would challenge, ostensibly for his own client but really for the colleague's.
What you want is argument in the jury room. A Telegraph reader who is a stockbroker is ideal opposite a Marxist who is all for the workers, and so on with every possible contrast. After all, the worst that can happen then is the jury deadlocked and a retrial. And the burden is on the prosecution, so it is more likely that those initially favour of guilty will change to having a reasonable doubt when faced with opposition, than the other way about.
And in rape trials you always wanted as many women as possible. Sigbat Khadri once achieved perfection; 12 women and a woman judge. His client was acquitted. Women are not deceived by tears in the witness box, are much harsher judges of complainants than men are, and more likely to accept that the man either thought she was consenting or she was, in fact, consenting. It's as though they think "What was she expecting, behaving like that?"
These "challenges without cause" have been abolished.
When they existed, there was a myth that anyone carrying a Telegraph and looking respectable would be challenged. Not so. What defence counsel were really after was as big a mix as possible, and they would pool their resources of challenges; they had a limited number, formerly seven , latterly three, each; to that end. That way, if one exhausted his challenges, someone else would challenge, ostensibly for his own client but really for the colleague's.
What you want is argument in the jury room. A Telegraph reader who is a stockbroker is ideal opposite a Marxist who is all for the workers, and so on with every possible contrast. After all, the worst that can happen then is the jury deadlocked and a retrial. And the burden is on the prosecution, so it is more likely that those initially favour of guilty will change to having a reasonable doubt when faced with opposition, than the other way about.
And in rape trials you always wanted as many women as possible. Sigbat Khadri once achieved perfection; 12 women and a woman judge. His client was acquitted. Women are not deceived by tears in the witness box, are much harsher judges of complainants than men are, and more likely to accept that the man either thought she was consenting or she was, in fact, consenting. It's as though they think "What was she expecting, behaving like that?"
I hadnt realised that it was "Melly" who had mucked up Ruth Ellis' 'defence'. Although it you say - it is obvious that I meant to kill him
I am not sure what the defence can do.
I am truly affected by the story that his silence stayed with him for the rest of his life. And doubtful.
More true to him - he used to carry his black hat - used for sentencing to death - around with hm after abolition of the death penalty
and he used to lament its passing
because the respect judges attrracted had dimininshed thereby
clearly I am not a Melly fan
Melly was known not to be an intellect and wasnt given hard cases apparently.
I am not sure what the defence can do.
I am truly affected by the story that his silence stayed with him for the rest of his life. And doubtful.
More true to him - he used to carry his black hat - used for sentencing to death - around with hm after abolition of the death penalty
and he used to lament its passing
because the respect judges attrracted had dimininshed thereby
clearly I am not a Melly fan
Melly was known not to be an intellect and wasnt given hard cases apparently.
Fred -
I would just like to say Thank you so much. Have you thought of writing a book? (seriously) - I just find you so helpful and informative and I love the way you explain things. You're brillant. (The lawyers on here are very good)
Re- women on Jury's - what you say makes complete sense. There is some research about conducted by Amnesty International where it showed women not being sympathetic towards other women - particularly insexual abuse cases.
I did notice that there were 8! women & 4 men on Michael Turner's Jury.
Anyway - what would happen if in such a long trial a Jury member is ill for a long time or (God forbid) dies? Would a new Jury have to be sworn in and start all over again.?
That Ruth Ellis stuff is so interesting. (I read about a murder case (time of hangings) and the accused voluntarily said - I will gladly take the rope if you can find anyone who saw me with the woman that day. Somebody did see him and convicted - if it was today all involved would perhaps (as you say) be beter prepared.
I would just like to say Thank you so much. Have you thought of writing a book? (seriously) - I just find you so helpful and informative and I love the way you explain things. You're brillant. (The lawyers on here are very good)
Re- women on Jury's - what you say makes complete sense. There is some research about conducted by Amnesty International where it showed women not being sympathetic towards other women - particularly insexual abuse cases.
I did notice that there were 8! women & 4 men on Michael Turner's Jury.
Anyway - what would happen if in such a long trial a Jury member is ill for a long time or (God forbid) dies? Would a new Jury have to be sworn in and start all over again.?
That Ruth Ellis stuff is so interesting. (I read about a murder case (time of hangings) and the accused voluntarily said - I will gladly take the rope if you can find anyone who saw me with the woman that day. Somebody did see him and convicted - if it was today all involved would perhaps (as you say) be beter prepared.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.