AIBU to not know how jury is supposed to weigh up evidence?

[JetTail]

I'm thinking specifically about JD's defamation trial. I've seen some of AH's testimony and if true, he's a c u next tuesday.
My question is, what if you don't believe her?
Are you supposed to come to a decision based on the assumption that everything you hear from a witness is true (as they are under oath) or are you supposed to consider credibility?
And what if there are conflicting accounts from opposing sides and you believe both accounts?
Mind a bit boggled today lol

This is how a rather large proportion of people do conduct themselves when on jury service, it’s horrifying.

So you're not really asking the question at all, are you? This is just another AH is a cunt thread? If that's what you want to say, just say it, dressing it up in faux wide-eyed naivety is disingenuous and bloody annoying.

This is how a rather large proportion of people do conduct themselves when on jury service, it’s horrifying.

Is it? Could you explain how you know that?

I didn't find anyone doing that when I did it, everyone too the responsibility very seriously. In the vast bulk of cases you wouldn't be able to anyway because you don't know anything about the case in advance.

Think about it logically.

Of course you can’t be expected to take what everyone says under oath as automatically true.

If one person is arguing that the sky is red, and the other that the sky is yellow, they can’t both be right!

The jury hear the evidence from both parties and their witnesses. They listen to the cross examination which is designed to test the evidence. Basically to see if either side may be lying. At the end of the trial the judge sums up the evidence and advises the jury on points of the law. So they are not interested in some of the testimony, but rather whether it is an issue in law. Juries shouldn't be looking at press coverage but judging for themselves whose evidence is most compelling. This is why people testify, so that juries can assess their honesty. Murderers tend not to testify as they will be torn to shreds by the prosecution.

It is on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond all reasonable doubt, so the bar is lower and it's who the jury believes backed up by the evidence of their legal team.

Of course people lie, but it's who you believe.

It's also a matter of corroborating evidence. I.e. two people saying one thing as opposed to just 1 person saying the opposite. Exactly why rape cases are hard to prove as it's just 1 person against another.

It's why the barristers/lawyers try to either prove their client's version of events or disprove the other person's version of events, but introducing other evidence.

I genuinely did not intend to be nasty about AH. My default position would be to believe her rather than him. I was just wondering really. How the hell do you decide? I wonder what the fucking point is of being 'under oath', when at least one fucker is bound to be lying lol. I genuinely get the impression that she has been deeply hurt by him but my irrelevant opinion is that she is not telling the truth and it has all snow-balled so that she's too far in to back out. I also think that this is probably destroying her mental health.

I would not be remotely surprised that if he wins the case, she will be extremely vulnerable mentally. Potentially fatally. No winners in this.

If it’s a criminal case the standard is “Beyond reasonable doubt”
If it’s a civil case it’s the “Balance of probabilities”.

A H is portraying herself as the victim, juries are always biased in favoring of the victim, which gives her an advantage.

I was obviously a toxic relationship how on earth you decide how much is true from both sides I have no idea, I would bet that JD looses.