Teenager guilty of murder.

[placemats]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/23/teenager-guilty-baby-herefordshire-hide-pregnancy-paris-mayo

Apart from the fact that she was raped, if consent to sex is to be a legal term, I find the prosecutions allegations appalling.

'But the prosecution alleged Mayo must have known she was pregnant but chose to deliberately conceal it because she was always planning to kill the baby.'

Perhaps Mayo didn't get early abortion help she needed. I know of one woman, who had 3 previous children, who didn't realise she was pregnant, thought it was early menopause until 4 weeks before her due date. However to allege she was always planning to kill the baby is a step too far. It intimates that those in authority know this child's mind.

You still haven't explained how he knew she was pregnant if she didn't.

Two of the jury members didn't agree. It was a split decision.

How can you possibly say what the scenario of least probability was if you haven’t heard any of the evidence??? Cases are supposed to be decided on the evidence, not the bundle preconceptions and theories and ideas about “probability” the jurors take into the jury room!!
please, for the love of god, do me one favour. If you’re ever invited to serve on a jury, find an excuse to get out of it.

So what?

So 2 of the 12 members of the jury disagreed with the decision.

That is not what I said.

So what? How does that undermine the contention that jury trial is a better way of getting to the truth than uninformed speculation on MN?

That's not how juries work. They aren't made up of people you think are correct. That's the point.

Yeah, you do right to try and suck that one back up the pipe. Jesus.

I don’t think anything’s “correct”. I think a carefully directed jury of 12 who heard all the evidence are better decision makers than internet theorists, and that includes me.

I don't think you understood my comment correctly at all.

I'm not quite sure why you're getting so aggressive about it.

The same way probability is calculated regarding everything- statistics.

Of cases are decided on evidence, but when it comes to the mind there is no objective evidence. It is all subjective- you have the person saying what their mind was thinking/feeling and you have others observing them and deciding whether they are lying or not lying, mentally stable or mentally ill.

Oh, and thanks for yet another personal attack. You are not covering yourself in glory that’s for sure as you cannot seem to discuss this rationally and calmly.

Just a final try at getting an answer. How did he know she was pregnant when she claims she didn't know.

So you do think juries are infallible and the public should never question their decisions because they know best.

how does saying a jury of 12 are better decision makers imply a belief in their infallibility? I mean, it doesn’t, does it. There’s just no way it does.

@placemats I meant done (not fine - that was an iPhone autocorrect) as in prosecuted. Not that he should be fined for raping her. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I think the suggestion Agatha is making is that the jury is instructed not to be basing decisions on their existing prejudices, experiences, opinions and beliefs.

Whether or not all juries manage to do so, or whether thant's even possible, is debatable.

Because if as a male you have unprotected sex twice with a person within weeks of the sex taking place then there's a strong possibility that you will impregnate.

I’m sorry to have to break this to you, but state of mind - the mental element of the relevant offences - is something that has to be proved by the prosecution in every criminal trial. Literally every one. Good luck with your campaign to undermine the basis of English criminal law. I will watch it with interest.

He should have asked if everything was okay.

That’s not your contention though- that it’s a better way. You’ve consistently characterised any questioning of the jury as “speculation” “invention” “uninformed” “know nothing about what happened” “a snit because the outcome is one that is disliked”

You haven’t defending the jury’s decision by referencing any of their rationale or reasoning. It’s all been basically saying the jury is right and anyone who questions it must be wrong.

And I think you said something very silly, and now you’re backing away from it. Quite right too

So he didn't know but might have thought it was possible?

The prosecution has to make a case, but they cannot prove state of mind. No one can actually prove it. You may be confusing mens rea- intent with state of mind. Those are two different mental elements.

You said he knew she was pregnant, now you are saying he should have asked if everything was okay. So you accept he didn't know then.