Prince Andrew Thread 2

[Roussette]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4442126-Prince-Andrew

Here is previous thread.

I've started a new thread because today and tomorrow is crucial as far as the pending civil case.

And I also had a few comments I wanted to say to posters at the end of the last thread, but it ran out.

@BIWI

Christ no! I did jury service once (only a couple of fairly minor cases) but it was enough to make me hope that I was never, ever accused of any crime that would see me being judged by my fellow men and women.

Overt racism and ignorance aplenty was very much on display. I was really shocked, and it was a real eye-opener.

I did jury service on a sexual assault case, and was horrified at the amount of casual misogyny/belief in rape myths on display. We had 'well, she let a man into her house...'; and the complainant had said she 'froze' when she realised what was happening, but the defendant's counsel made much of how she still helped the guy take off her clothes as she as so scared of what he might do. Members of the jury could or would not understand that she might have meant mentally and emotionally froze. Funnily enough, they were men; women on the jury knew very well what she meant.

The first case I sat on was a young black woman, accused of GBH or ABH (can't remember which). Various witnesses called, all give slightly different versions of what actually happened. Therefore, technically, we should have found her 'not guilty' on the basis of reasonable doubt. No such instruction given to us though.

Go into the jury room, and the first thing anyone said - a middle-aged white man - was (and this is word-for-word), "you can tell she did it, all these black people are the same". [anger]

That doesn't contradict what I said. If a juror answered yes " I've been sexually harassed, a builder once wolf- whistled at me" that's rather different from the scenario you've suggested. Do you think both should be excluded?

@KimikosNightmare

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but given the nature of the case I'd go with the jury questions not being sufficiently detailed to filter the jurors adequately.

So, to do an effective job, it would be more like:

1. Have you ever been raped, penetrated, etc. (Yes, no, refuse to answer).
2. Have you endured ongoing physical sexual harassment
3. 1. happened to sibling/parent/close friend/other relative - underline as appropriate
4. 2. happened to sibling/parent/close friend/other relative
5. If you answered no to all of 1-4, do you believe yourself able to be objective about crimes of a sexual nature.

I'm sure there's a few other detailed categories that could be added, but that's just to sketch an outline.

@BIWI

Christ no! I did jury service once (only a couple of fairly minor cases) but it was enough to make me hope that I was never, ever accused of any crime that would see me being judged by my fellow men and women.

Overt racism and ignorance aplenty was very much on display. I was really shocked, and it was a real eye-opener.

That was my fathers response after being a jury member at a murder trial.

He was very discrete about what happened but said he and another juror had to work really, really hard to keep the deliberations on track and discussing relevant evidence as opposed to gut feeling and decisions made on the basis of ingrained prejudice and assumptions.

Prior to that experience he'd always had a very healthy respect for the judicial system but afterwards became (and remains) very skeptical that justice is always best served by a randomly selected jury.

"Epstein was playing the two of them, like the idiots that they were and are."

Yes.

That would have been my thought.

He only cared about himself I would have thought.

Logically I can't see why the agreement would extend to Andrew.

@BIWI

The first case I sat on was a young black woman, accused of GBH or ABH (can't remember which). Various witnesses called, all give slightly different versions of what actually happened. Therefore, technically, we should have found her 'not guilty' on the basis of reasonable doubt. No such instruction given to us though.

Go into the jury room, and the first thing anyone said - a middle-aged white man - was (and this is word-for-word), "you can tell she did it, all these black people are the same". [anger]

Omg that’s sickening . I would add though that I makes sense if people give slightly different versions of events as we all see things differently. If people have identical stories, that’s dodgy.

I agree with Gilmorehill. If I heard 3 identical accounts of an incident I wouldn't believe them. I was a witness to an incident recently. My DH was also a witness to it. Our statements were not identical.

Therefore, technically, we should have found her 'not guilty' on the basis of reasonable doubt. No such instruction given to us though.

That's appalling. I will say that both judges in my jury experience were crystal-clear in directing us how to deliberate and what the criteria were for a guilty verdict.

So if the jury system is dodgy, can you think of anything better?

I was on a jury where there were 3 people accused. We found 2 guilty but didn't feel the other one was 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. After giving the verdict we heard the past form of the 2 we'd found guilty. I think the third was guilty and there was actually a miscarriage of justice, but I don't know a better way.

@upinaballoon

So if the jury system is dodgy, can you think of anything better?

I was on a jury where there were 3 people accused. We found 2 guilty but didn't feel the other one was 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. After giving the verdict we heard the past form of the 2 we'd found guilty. I think the third was guilty and there was actually a miscarriage of justice, but I don't know a better way.

No, I think it is a classic case of the least worst option.

One of the judges at mine also said that having to be sure of the person's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt (although in fact they did not use that phrase, just said we had to be 'sure') was not to protect the guilty, it was to protect the innocent. That's really stuck with me.
I was talking to a friend a while ago who did jury service on a case of distributing indecent images of children, and they couldn't convict because of a technicality/detail. She was nonetheless sure the person was guilty, and was saddened and incensed at having had to 'let him back out on the streets', as she put it. I totally got that and I can't say I disagree on one level. But I thought about what that judge said, and just thought 'But, but, but...'.

It is beyond complicated as an issue.

Various witnesses called, all give slightly different versions of what actually happened. Therefore, technically, we should have found her 'not guilty' on the basis of reasonable doubt. No such instruction given to us though.

No, you shouldn't, and the judge would have been wrong to give you that instruction. As others have said, if you have 10 witnesses to an event you will have 10 differing accounts of what happened. If they were all identical, that would be highly suspicious. The question is whether those differing accounts are enough to convince you beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.

I will say that both judges in my jury experience were crystal-clear in directing us how to deliberate and what the criteria were for a guilty verdict

Same on mine, Parps, but unfortunately some of the jurors preferred their own interpretations

I guess at least with twelve people, there's a good chance that enough will have paid attention to the judge to sway the others...

@IntermittentParps

Therefore, technically, we should have found her 'not guilty' on the basis of reasonable doubt. No such instruction given to us though.

That's appalling. I will say that both judges in my jury experience were crystal-clear in directing us how to deliberate and what the criteria were for a guilty verdict.

Yes, that's true - but the accounts of what happened were so different, it raised a lot of questions that simply weren't answered by the prosecution.

@prh47bridge

Yes, the accounts were very different. It was impossible, listening to all the witness accounts, to form any clear idea as to what had actually happened, and who did what to who.

I totally agree that if all the witnesses gave identical statements it would have been suspicious!

A second juror appears to have admitted discussing their own experience of being sexually abused as a child during the jury's deliberations. Unsurprisingly, the judge has allowed Maxwell's lawyers to move for a retrial. That doesn't mean they'll get one, of course.

Various witnesses called, all give slightly different versions of what actually happened. Therefore, technically, we should have found her 'not guilty' on the basis of reasonable doubt. No such instruction given to us though

That's more likely to show credibility than otherwise.

@IntermittentParps

Therefore, technically, we should have found her 'not guilty' on the basis of reasonable doubt. No such instruction given to us though.

That's appalling. I will say that both judges in my jury experience were crystal-clear in directing us how to deliberate and what the criteria were for a guilty verdict.

What would have been "appalling" is if such a direction had been given.

@prh47bridge

A second juror appears to have admitted discussing their own experience of being sexually abused as a child during the jury's deliberations. Unsurprisingly, the judge has allowed Maxwell's lawyers to move for a retrial. That doesn't mean they'll get one, of course.

I also read that the Defence has requested the Juror in question be assigned a lawyer.

Just to clarify my post, it’s the first Juror assigned a lawyer not sure about the second!

@prh47bridge That doesn't mean they'll get one, of course

Under what grounds would the judge refuse a retrial in this instance?

prh47bridge would that mean they are thinking about perjury where the first juror is concerned?
What a mess.

[quote Vapeyvapevape]**@prh47bridge* That doesn't mean they'll get one, of course*

Under what grounds would the judge refuse a retrial in this instance?[/quote]
Not sufficiently familiar with US law but the prosecution may attempt to argue that these two jurors did not affect the verdict - that Maxwell would have been convicted anyway. However, that contradicts the claims from these jurors that they persuaded others. If either of them lied on the questionnaire, I suspect we are heading for a retrial.

@StormzyinaTCup

prh47bridge would that mean they are thinking about perjury where the first juror is concerned? What a mess.

I believe it is actually the prosecution that has asked for the first juror to be assigned a lawyer. A perjury charge is certainly possible.

Quite a few of the jurors on the O J Simpson trial published books on their experience. The idea of the jury room being sacrosanct does not seem to be part of US culture.