Crosswords0 min ago
Fiona Onasanya Retrial
Jury, surprisingly in my view, couldn't come to a majority decision.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Given that one juror had been discharged, the majority needed was 10-1 ... so it only needed two jurors to be unconvinced (for whatever reason) and there could be no verdict. Unfortunatel
13:40 Mon 26th Nov 2018
-- answer removed --
She is a proven liar and has admitted three charges of perverting the course of justice, I can’t imagine what the Jury’s problem was.
https:/
https:/
She left the NIP form at her mother's house because she knew she was in Parliament that day and couldn't have been driving.
Then her 'lovable rogue' of a brother, who she's very angry with, told lies on the form.
She didn't realise she had to fill the form in herself because she was busy, and racists. And wouldn't you know it, Parliament was shut that day, of all days.
She had several interviews with the police where she might have explained all this but hadn't thought of it then.
Then her 'lovable rogue' of a brother, who she's very angry with, told lies on the form.
She didn't realise she had to fill the form in herself because she was busy, and racists. And wouldn't you know it, Parliament was shut that day, of all days.
She had several interviews with the police where she might have explained all this but hadn't thought of it then.
Anyone who has sat through any sort of criminal trial will know that there is rarely anything that is "cut and dried". We only know what the papers have reported. We don't know what was said in court over the week or so that the case lasted. We don't know how strong the evidence for the prosecution was, we don't know if there were any legal problems with the admissability of that evidence, we don't know what defence she has put forward.
Having said that, juries are strange animals. I won't relate a tale involving a jury that I witnessed that demonstrates just that because it would not be proper on a public forum. But things are rarely as straightforward as they seem.
Having said that, juries are strange animals. I won't relate a tale involving a jury that I witnessed that demonstrates just that because it would not be proper on a public forum. But things are rarely as straightforward as they seem.
"The police tracked her 2 mobile phones to the vicinity of the speed camera when her car triggered it.
And she'd been to a meeting with her agent and others, in her car, at his house near the speed camera."
What you just explained in four lines probably took a day or two to adduce to a jury, spicey. Within that there's all sorts of scope for ambiguity, confusion and error. We simply don't know why two of the jury members remained unconvinced (in fact nobody - including the judge - does) and speculation will not help us learn.
And she'd been to a meeting with her agent and others, in her car, at his house near the speed camera."
What you just explained in four lines probably took a day or two to adduce to a jury, spicey. Within that there's all sorts of scope for ambiguity, confusion and error. We simply don't know why two of the jury members remained unconvinced (in fact nobody - including the judge - does) and speculation will not help us learn.
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.