FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Foreman of the jury changes his mind.

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Paul Moffitt, foreman of the jury who had previously found Chris Norris guilty of being a serial killer, beyond any reasonable doubt, now thinks he was not at all guilty. Not even worthy of being taken to trial in the first place. Who'd have thought that eh?

Do these people not have a questioning brain in their head when they first deliberate?

Just what is British justice coming to? LOL

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Is it not possible that new evidence has come to light since the original trial?

The jurors can only work with what they're provided with in terms of evidence, the Judge will clearly advise them on how to interpret it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Is it not possible that new evidence has come to light since the original trial?

The jurors can only work with what they're provided with in terms of evidence, the Judge will clearly advise them on how to interpret it. "

It is possible, yes, and indeed that seems to be the case. However, that also suggest the initial evidence was a) incomplete and b) severly wrong in the first case.

Try getting away with submitting a) and b) in support of a benefit claim and see what happens.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

It's not a juror's job to change their mind. If there's compelling new evidence, let the CCRC handle it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is it not possible that new evidence has come to light since the original trial?

The jurors can only work with what they're provided with in terms of evidence, the Judge will clearly advise them on how to interpret it.

It is possible, yes, and indeed that seems to be the case. However, that also suggest the initial evidence was a) incomplete and b) severly wrong in the first case.

Try getting away with submitting a) and b) in support of a benefit claim and see what happens."

But you mocked the juror when it wasn't his fault that the defence didn't do a good enough job.

When you do Jury Duty, you're given very clear instructions and the Judge will advise you on how to interpret the law. You can't be held responsible for barristers not providing evidence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It's not a juror's job to change their mind. "

I entirely agree, when a verdict is say 8-4 then it should stay at that. But how often is a jury told to give say a 10-2 majority verdict and two people "have their minds changed"?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Is it not possible that new evidence has come to light since the original trial?

The jurors can only work with what they're provided with in terms of evidence, the Judge will clearly advise them on how to interpret it.

It is possible, yes, and indeed that seems to be the case. However, that also suggest the initial evidence was a) incomplete and b) severly wrong in the first case.

Try getting away with submitting a) and b) in support of a benefit claim and see what happens.

But you mocked the juror when it wasn't his fault that the defence didn't do a good enough job.

When you do Jury Duty, you're given very clear instructions and the Judge will advise you on how to interpret the law. You can't be held responsible for barristers not providing evidence. "

Where have i mocked the juror? At all. I'm simply asking don't they have a brain in their head that questions whether the evidence of the prosecution can always be totally truthful, accurate and complete?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ondimentsCouple
over a year ago

Southampton

Haven't read anything about this but is it possible it wasn't a unanimous decision in the first place and he never thought he was guilty?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's not a juror's job to change their mind.

I entirely agree, when a verdict is say 8-4 then it should stay at that. But how often is a jury told to give say a 10-2 majority verdict and two people "have their minds changed"?"

They don't have their minds changed. Been there. Normally a unanimous verdict is preferred...but if jury cannot agree then judge will accept a majority verdict (10-2). But at no time is pressure put on any juror to change their mind. It will be accepted if it was already 10-2 but not unanimous.

If remained at 8-4 then "cannot reach a verdict" = dismis jury and order a retrial.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It's not a juror's job to change their mind.

I entirely agree, when a verdict is say 8-4 then it should stay at that. But how often is a jury told to give say a 10-2 majority verdict and two people "have their minds changed"?

They don't have their minds changed. Been there. Normally a unanimous verdict is preferred...but if jury cannot agree then judge will accept a majority verdict (10-2). But at no time is pressure put on any juror to change their mind. It will be accepted if it was already 10-2 but not unanimous.

If remained at 8-4 then "cannot reach a verdict" = dismis jury and order a retrial."

Not always so. It does, and has happened.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Where have i mocked the juror? At all. I'm simply asking don't they have a brain in their head that questions whether the evidence of the prosecution can always be totally truthful, accurate and complete?"

When you said "Do these people not have a questioning brain in their head when they first deliberate?

Just what is British justice coming to? LOL" it appeared like you're mocking a juror for lacking intelligence.

In this case, the prosecution was very good and strong. The defence was inadequate. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution and this is always clearly pointed out by the Judge, along with their direction and how the Jury should interpret the evidence.

You should be chastising Norris' legal team, not the juror. It didn't take much for the BBC to investigate it, it should've all been looked into before trial.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he TrunkMan
over a year ago

Manchester

Trust me, if you've ever done jury service it's frightening, I wouldn't want my fate in the hands of some I served with!!

Unless I was guilty of course

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


" I'm simply asking don't they have a brain in their head that questions whether the evidence of the prosecution can always be totally truthful, accurate and complete?

"

they did..

unless your expecting every person on a jury to be an expert in the primary field that the case is based upon in relation to the evidence at that time its a bit unclear what point your making..?

they heard the expert witnesses for the scientific evidence at that time and they made their judgement based upon that..

to expect jurors under the current system to not make their decision based upon the evidence available and think yes but what if in the future etc etc.. is naive..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

that parott is decaesed!

Ive just seen a newbie offering pics for money to start a fund for a parott she rescued!! any body want buy some grotty boxers for the help a alcoholic fund im starting? ill throw in 2wk old used socks to the first 3 offers all donations hic greatfully believed

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Trust me, if you've ever done jury service it's frightening, I wouldn't want my fate in the hands of some I served with!!

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" I'm simply asking don't they have a brain in their head that questions whether the evidence of the prosecution can always be totally truthful, accurate and complete?

they did..

unless your expecting every person on a jury to be an expert in the primary field that the case is based upon in relation to the evidence at that time its a bit unclear what point your making..?

they heard the expert witnesses for the scientific evidence at that time and they made their judgement based upon that..

to expect jurors under the current system to not make their decision based upon the evidence available and think yes but what if in the future etc etc.. is naive..

"

Yep. Jurors are told explicitly to ignore all external evidence otherwise a it's a mistrial. In this case, the defence should've petitioned for the evidence of the 6th patient to die in similar circumstances when Norris wasn't on shift. Hopefully his barrister is reviewed by the Bar Standards Board.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


" I'm simply asking don't they have a brain in their head that questions whether the evidence of the prosecution can always be totally truthful, accurate and complete?

they did..

unless your expecting every person on a jury to be an expert in the primary field that the case is based upon in relation to the evidence at that time its a bit unclear what point your making..?

they heard the expert witnesses for the scientific evidence at that time and they made their judgement based upon that..

to expect jurors under the current system to not make their decision based upon the evidence available and think yes but what if in the future etc etc.. is naive..

"

Not at all in the future, more a case of what if in the current.

Not that regularly used "scientific experts" have never been wholly discredited is it?

What i'm also saying is that it is inherent that such evidence itself should be full, complete and accurate "beyond any reasonable doubt" and in this case it clearly wasn't so. It would appear that other scientific evidence gave credence to this at the time, maybe the jurors were directed not to rely on that side of the evidence?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Trust me, if you've ever done jury service it's frightening, I wouldn't want my fate in the hands of some I served with!!

Unless I was guilty of course "

not in my experience..

was the foreman of a jury on a rape case and the issue was looked at diligently as at the end of the day it was a very serious allegation and someone's liberty at stake..

have also sat through a trial supporting a friends family and that jury were very attentive..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


" I'm simply asking don't they have a brain in their head that questions whether the evidence of the prosecution can always be totally truthful, accurate and complete?

they did..

unless your expecting every person on a jury to be an expert in the primary field that the case is based upon in relation to the evidence at that time its a bit unclear what point your making..?

they heard the expert witnesses for the scientific evidence at that time and they made their judgement based upon that..

to expect jurors under the current system to not make their decision based upon the evidence available and think yes but what if in the future etc etc.. is naive..

Not at all in the future, more a case of what if in the current.

Not that regularly used "scientific experts" have never been wholly discredited is it?

What i'm also saying is that it is inherent that such evidence itself should be full, complete and accurate "beyond any reasonable doubt" and in this case it clearly wasn't so. It would appear that other scientific evidence gave credence to this at the time, maybe the jurors were directed not to rely on that side of the evidence? "

the nature of any case where current sciebtific evedence is at the core will always be open to question 'in the future' IF advances in science allow..

your initial post is mocking in its tone based upon hindsight..

poor..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Trust me, if you've ever done jury service it's frightening, I wouldn't want my fate in the hands of some I served with!!

Unless I was guilty of course

not in my experience..

was the foreman of a jury on a rape case and the issue was looked at diligently as at the end of the day it was a very serious allegation and someone's liberty at stake..

have also sat through a trial supporting a friends family and that jury were very attentive.."

Just shows that peoples experiences differ. I note also that you use the word "issue".

I would have thought that Chris Norris faced even more serious allegations than rape and look at how that has affected his liberty?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Trust me, if you've ever done jury service it's frightening, I wouldn't want my fate in the hands of some I served with!!

Unless I was guilty of course

not in my experience..

was the foreman of a jury on a rape case and the issue was looked at diligently as at the end of the day it was a very serious allegation and someone's liberty at stake..

have also sat through a trial supporting a friends family and that jury were very attentive..

Just shows that peoples experiences differ. I note also that you use the word "issue".

I would have thought that Chris Norris faced even more serious allegations than rape and look at how that has affected his liberty?

"

issue as in the issue in question, the allegation..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


" I'm simply asking don't they have a brain in their head that questions whether the evidence of the prosecution can always be totally truthful, accurate and complete?

they did..

unless your expecting every person on a jury to be an expert in the primary field that the case is based upon in relation to the evidence at that time its a bit unclear what point your making..?

they heard the expert witnesses for the scientific evidence at that time and they made their judgement based upon that..

to expect jurors under the current system to not make their decision based upon the evidence available and think yes but what if in the future etc etc.. is naive..

Not at all in the future, more a case of what if in the current.

Not that regularly used "scientific experts" have never been wholly discredited is it?

What i'm also saying is that it is inherent that such evidence itself should be full, complete and accurate "beyond any reasonable doubt" and in this case it clearly wasn't so. It would appear that other scientific evidence gave credence to this at the time, maybe the jurors were directed not to rely on that side of the evidence?

the nature of any case where current sciebtific evedence is at the core will always be open to question 'in the future' IF advances in science allow..

your initial post is mocking in its tone based upon hindsight..

poor.."

It's not about what advances in medical sciences have revealed in historical light, it's about the actual scientific facts existing at the time of the allegations. The Jury Foreman knows acknoweldges that. As he says, he couldn't even see it getting to trial. I assume he feels very misled by the whole process.

Very poor indeed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"

Paul Moffitt, foreman of the jury who had previously found Chris Norris guilty of being a serial killer, beyond any reasonable doubt, now thinks he was not at all guilty. Not even worthy of being taken to trial in the first place. Who'd have thought that eh?

Do these people not have a questioning brain in their head when they first deliberate?

Just what is British justice coming to? LOL "

not quite the truth... so lets look at what has actually happened...

norris was found guilty...

panorama do a programme that casts light to new evidence that may have said he may not have done it.... and it may now have been natural causes

that new Scientific evidence has only been around for the last 2 years.... 5 years after the original case and the original conviction

this new evidence has been given to the CPS who will make a decision as to quash the original verdict

so what the foreman said what that IF the new evidence had been around at the time of the original trial.... he would have changed his verdict....

so lets not twist it to fit your narrative.......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Trust me, if you've ever done jury service it's frightening, I wouldn't want my fate in the hands of some I served with!!

Unless I was guilty of course

not in my experience..

was the foreman of a jury on a rape case and the issue was looked at diligently as at the end of the day it was a very serious allegation and someone's liberty at stake..

have also sat through a trial supporting a friends family and that jury were very attentive..

Just shows that peoples experiences differ. I note also that you use the word "issue".

I would have thought that Chris Norris faced even more serious allegations than rape and look at how that has affected his liberty?

issue as in the issue in question, the allegation..

"

Agree entirely, the whole issue, not merely "evidence as presented" being incomplete and inccurate.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Trust me, if you've ever done jury service it's frightening, I wouldn't want my fate in the hands of some I served with!!

Unless I was guilty of course

not in my experience..

was the foreman of a jury on a rape case and the issue was looked at diligently as at the end of the day it was a very serious allegation and someone's liberty at stake..

have also sat through a trial supporting a friends family and that jury were very attentive..

Just shows that peoples experiences differ. I note also that you use the word "issue".

I would have thought that Chris Norris faced even more serious allegations than rape and look at how that has affected his liberty?

issue as in the issue in question, the allegation..

Agree entirely, the whole issue, not merely "evidence as presented" being incomplete and inccurate.

"

your being naive again, will refer you to my earlier post..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

Paul Moffitt, foreman of the jury who had previously found Chris Norris guilty of being a serial killer, beyond any reasonable doubt, now thinks he was not at all guilty. Not even worthy of being taken to trial in the first place. Who'd have thought that eh?

Do these people not have a questioning brain in their head when they first deliberate?

Just what is British justice coming to? LOL

not quite the truth... so lets look at what has actually happened...

norris was found guilty...

panorama do a programme that casts light to new evidence that may have said he may not have done it.... and it may now have been natural causes

that new Scientific evidence has only been around for the last 2 years.... 5 years after the original case and the original conviction

this new evidence has been given to the CPS who will make a decision as to quash the original verdict

so what the foreman said what that IF the new evidence had been around at the time of the original trial.... he would have changed his verdict....

so lets not twist it to fit your narrative....... "

So in your view, does "may have" not trump "beyond all reasonable doubt" bearing in mind that you are most likley incarcerating person for a long time? I haven't a clue whether the guy is guilty or not, i'm questioning the acceptance of the "beyond all reasonable doubt."

It seems the Jury Foreman is in no lingering doubt.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Paul Moffitt, foreman of the jury who had previously found Chris Norris guilty of being a serial killer, beyond any reasonable doubt, now thinks he was not at all guilty. Not even worthy of being taken to trial in the first place. Who'd have thought that eh?

Do these people not have a questioning brain in their head when they first deliberate?

Just what is British justice coming to? LOL

not quite the truth... so lets look at what has actually happened...

norris was found guilty...

panorama do a programme that casts light to new evidence that may have said he may not have done it.... and it may now have been natural causes

that new Scientific evidence has only been around for the last 2 years.... 5 years after the original case and the original conviction

this new evidence has been given to the CPS who will make a decision as to quash the original verdict

so what the foreman said what that IF the new evidence had been around at the time of the original trial.... he would have changed his verdict....

so lets not twist it to fit your narrative.......

So in your view, does "may have" not trump "beyond all reasonable doubt" bearing in mind that you are most likley incarcerating person for a long time? I haven't a clue whether the guy is guilty or not, i'm questioning the acceptance of the "beyond all reasonable doubt."

It seems the Jury Foreman is in no lingering doubt. "

The evidence provided was clearly enough. You're looking at evidence that has been brought to light after trial.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

[Removed by poster at 28/01/15 22:38:18]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Juries in the crown court get told to come to a decision based only on the evidence they are given in the court. When I last did jury service we were warned that jurors could be jailed for researching (e.g. on line) any aspect of the case. I guess that also includes not leaping into a Tardis to go 5 years into the future

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Juries in the crown court get told to come to a decision based only on the evidence they are given in the court. When I last did jury service we were warned that jurors could be jailed for researching (e.g. on line) any aspect of the case. I guess that also includes not leaping into a Tardis to go 5 years into the future "

I don't see how he can be criticised for saying he'd have come to a different conclusion if different evidence had been presented

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

Paul Moffitt, foreman of the jury who had previously found Chris Norris guilty of being a serial killer, beyond any reasonable doubt, now thinks he was not at all guilty. Not even worthy of being taken to trial in the first place. Who'd have thought that eh?

Do these people not have a questioning brain in their head when they first deliberate?

Just what is British justice coming to? LOL

not quite the truth... so lets look at what has actually happened...

norris was found guilty...

panorama do a programme that casts light to new evidence that may have said he may not have done it.... and it may now have been natural causes

that new Scientific evidence has only been around for the last 2 years.... 5 years after the original case and the original conviction

this new evidence has been given to the CPS who will make a decision as to quash the original verdict

so what the foreman said what that IF the new evidence had been around at the time of the original trial.... he would have changed his verdict....

so lets not twist it to fit your narrative.......

So in your view, does "may have" not trump "beyond all reasonable doubt" bearing in mind that you are most likley incarcerating person for a long time? I haven't a clue whether the guy is guilty or not, i'm questioning the acceptance of the "beyond all reasonable doubt."

It seems the Jury Foreman is in no lingering doubt.

The evidence provided was clearly enough. You're looking at evidence that has been brought to light after trial. "

Not if Panarama is to be believed, and re your above point re the sixth death :

"The programme also reported that a sixth case, of a patient who died after a similar hypoglycaemic episode, WAS NOT PUT TO THE JURY after detectives discounted it when they realised that Colin Norris had not been on shift at the time." My capitalisation.

That reads to me like those very pertinent facts were known at the time of the trial, not several years afterwards due to improvements in medical science. And, importantly, deliberately withheld from the Trial and Jury.

Had the jury been told of that, are you all still insisting that there'd be no reasonable doubt, whatsoever?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Juries in the crown court get told to come to a decision based only on the evidence they are given in the court. When I last did jury service we were warned that jurors could be jailed for researching (e.g. on line) any aspect of the case. I guess that also includes not leaping into a Tardis to go 5 years into the future

I don't see how he can be criticised for saying he'd have come to a different conclusion if different evidence had been presented "

That's the very point the guy himself is saying. I'm not criticising him at all, i'm agreeing with him.

He is quite clearly saying that had he been presented with the accurate and full information, KNOWN at the time, then he personally cannot see how it could have got to trial never mind him passing a guilty verdict. Other jurors may still have taken a differing view of course.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Paul Moffitt, foreman of the jury who had previously found Chris Norris guilty of being a serial killer, beyond any reasonable doubt, now thinks he was not at all guilty. Not even worthy of being taken to trial in the first place. Who'd have thought that eh?

Do these people not have a questioning brain in their head when they first deliberate?

Just what is British justice coming to? LOL

not quite the truth... so lets look at what has actually happened...

norris was found guilty...

panorama do a programme that casts light to new evidence that may have said he may not have done it.... and it may now have been natural causes

that new Scientific evidence has only been around for the last 2 years.... 5 years after the original case and the original conviction

this new evidence has been given to the CPS who will make a decision as to quash the original verdict

so what the foreman said what that IF the new evidence had been around at the time of the original trial.... he would have changed his verdict....

so lets not twist it to fit your narrative.......

So in your view, does "may have" not trump "beyond all reasonable doubt" bearing in mind that you are most likley incarcerating person for a long time? I haven't a clue whether the guy is guilty or not, i'm questioning the acceptance of the "beyond all reasonable doubt."

It seems the Jury Foreman is in no lingering doubt.

The evidence provided was clearly enough. You're looking at evidence that has been brought to light after trial.

Not if Panarama is to be believed, and re your above point re the sixth death :

"The programme also reported that a sixth case, of a patient who died after a similar hypoglycaemic episode, WAS NOT PUT TO THE JURY after detectives discounted it when they realised that Colin Norris had not been on shift at the time." My capitalisation.

That reads to me like those very pertinent facts were known at the time of the trial, not several years afterwards due to improvements in medical science. And, importantly, deliberately withheld from the Trial and Jury.

Had the jury been told of that, are you all still insisting that there'd be no reasonable doubt, whatsoever?

"

I'm saying that the evidence wasn't put forward so the Jury performed their duty to the best of their knowledge. I'm also saying that the defence obviously didn't do enough to help Norris and should be looked into. It has also been said if the CPS was aware of the evidence, the trial may not have taken place.

However, if you read the case notes (especially about his care of elderly ladies), it's completely understandable how they reached the decision. The prosecution was extremely compelling - even the Judge was convinced.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Juries in the crown court get told to come to a decision based only on the evidence they are given in the court. When I last did jury service we were warned that jurors could be jailed for researching (e.g. on line) any aspect of the case. I guess that also includes not leaping into a Tardis to go 5 years into the future

I don't see how he can be criticised for saying he'd have come to a different conclusion if different evidence had been presented

That's the very point the guy himself is saying. I'm not criticising him at all, i'm agreeing with him.

He is quite clearly saying that had he been presented with the accurate and full information, KNOWN at the time, then he personally cannot see how it could have got to trial never mind him passing a guilty verdict. Other jurors may still have taken a differing view of course."

So in your opening post when you say "Do these people not have a questioning brain in their head when they first deliberate?" who exactly are you criticising?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

Paul Moffitt, foreman of the jury who had previously found Chris Norris guilty of being a serial killer, beyond any reasonable doubt, now thinks he was not at all guilty. Not even worthy of being taken to trial in the first place. Who'd have thought that eh?

Do these people not have a questioning brain in their head when they first deliberate?

Just what is British justice coming to? LOL

not quite the truth... so lets look at what has actually happened...

norris was found guilty...

panorama do a programme that casts light to new evidence that may have said he may not have done it.... and it may now have been natural causes

that new Scientific evidence has only been around for the last 2 years.... 5 years after the original case and the original conviction

this new evidence has been given to the CPS who will make a decision as to quash the original verdict

so what the foreman said what that IF the new evidence had been around at the time of the original trial.... he would have changed his verdict....

so lets not twist it to fit your narrative.......

So in your view, does "may have" not trump "beyond all reasonable doubt" bearing in mind that you are most likley incarcerating person for a long time? I haven't a clue whether the guy is guilty or not, i'm questioning the acceptance of the "beyond all reasonable doubt."

It seems the Jury Foreman is in no lingering doubt.

The evidence provided was clearly enough. You're looking at evidence that has been brought to light after trial.

Not if Panarama is to be believed, and re your above point re the sixth death :

"The programme also reported that a sixth case, of a patient who died after a similar hypoglycaemic episode, WAS NOT PUT TO THE JURY after detectives discounted it when they realised that Colin Norris had not been on shift at the time." My capitalisation.

That reads to me like those very pertinent facts were known at the time of the trial, not several years afterwards due to improvements in medical science. And, importantly, deliberately withheld from the Trial and Jury.

Had the jury been told of that, are you all still insisting that there'd be no reasonable doubt, whatsoever?

I'm saying that the evidence wasn't put forward so the Jury performed their duty to the best of their knowledge. I'm also saying that the defence obviously didn't do enough to help Norris and should be looked into. It has also been said if the CPS was aware of the evidence, the trial may not have taken place.

However, if you read the case notes (especially about his care of elderly ladies), it's completely understandable how they reached the decision. The prosecution was extremely compelling - even the Judge was convinced."

Surely, the CPS would have been fully cognisant of the deliberate withholding of KNOWN evidence by the "detectives" at that time.

Or, as someone with a working brain would have asked, is there any contrary evidence to suggest the guy isn't likely guilty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Paul Moffitt, foreman of the jury who had previously found Chris Norris guilty of being a serial killer, beyond any reasonable doubt, now thinks he was not at all guilty. Not even worthy of being taken to trial in the first place. Who'd have thought that eh?

Do these people not have a questioning brain in their head when they first deliberate?

Just what is British justice coming to? LOL

not quite the truth... so lets look at what has actually happened...

norris was found guilty...

panorama do a programme that casts light to new evidence that may have said he may not have done it.... and it may now have been natural causes

that new Scientific evidence has only been around for the last 2 years.... 5 years after the original case and the original conviction

this new evidence has been given to the CPS who will make a decision as to quash the original verdict

so what the foreman said what that IF the new evidence had been around at the time of the original trial.... he would have changed his verdict....

so lets not twist it to fit your narrative.......

So in your view, does "may have" not trump "beyond all reasonable doubt" bearing in mind that you are most likley incarcerating person for a long time? I haven't a clue whether the guy is guilty or not, i'm questioning the acceptance of the "beyond all reasonable doubt."

It seems the Jury Foreman is in no lingering doubt.

The evidence provided was clearly enough. You're looking at evidence that has been brought to light after trial.

Not if Panarama is to be believed, and re your above point re the sixth death :

"The programme also reported that a sixth case, of a patient who died after a similar hypoglycaemic episode, WAS NOT PUT TO THE JURY after detectives discounted it when they realised that Colin Norris had not been on shift at the time." My capitalisation.

That reads to me like those very pertinent facts were known at the time of the trial, not several years afterwards due to improvements in medical science. And, importantly, deliberately withheld from the Trial and Jury.

Had the jury been told of that, are you all still insisting that there'd be no reasonable doubt, whatsoever?

I'm saying that the evidence wasn't put forward so the Jury performed their duty to the best of their knowledge. I'm also saying that the defence obviously didn't do enough to help Norris and should be looked into. It has also been said if the CPS was aware of the evidence, the trial may not have taken place.

However, if you read the case notes (especially about his care of elderly ladies), it's completely understandable how they reached the decision. The prosecution was extremely compelling - even the Judge was convinced.

Surely, the CPS would have been fully cognisant of the deliberate withholding of KNOWN evidence by the "detectives" at that time.

Or, as someone with a working brain would have asked, is there any contrary evidence to suggest the guy isn't likely guilty.

"

Not necessarily. The detectives gather and provide evidence, the CPS then shares everything with the defence. Hiding evidence compromises cases and would possibly result in criminal proceedings against the CPS barrister.

The defence should've conducted its own investigation into the hospital records and petitioned it as evidence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ive done jury service and sat on 2 trials, one for a "nothingness" that none of us even thought should ever have been brought to trial (we all believed the case to be "having a go" at the defendants father, who was a high ranking cop who'd pissed a lot of officers off). The other case was rape. We were instructed in both cases to reach a unanimous verdict. I cant see that a murder trial would accept majority rule.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ive done jury service and sat on 2 trials, one for a "nothingness" that none of us even thought should ever have been brought to trial (we all believed the case to be "having a go" at the defendants father, who was a high ranking cop who'd pissed a lot of officers off). The other case was rape. We were instructed in both cases to reach a unanimous verdict. I cant see that a murder trial would accept majority rule. "

It was a majority verdict. It depends on the time frame, a Judge can allow it after 2 hours of deliberation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Juries in the crown court get told to come to a decision based only on the evidence they are given in the court. When I last did jury service we were warned that jurors could be jailed for researching (e.g. on line) any aspect of the case. I guess that also includes not leaping into a Tardis to go 5 years into the future

I don't see how he can be criticised for saying he'd have come to a different conclusion if different evidence had been presented

That's the very point the guy himself is saying. I'm not criticising him at all, i'm agreeing with him.

He is quite clearly saying that had he been presented with the accurate and full information, KNOWN at the time, then he personally cannot see how it could have got to trial never mind him passing a guilty verdict. Other jurors may still have taken a differing view of course.

So in your opening post when you say "Do these people not have a questioning brain in their head when they first deliberate?" who exactly are you criticising? "

That line refers to the Jurors not having a critical brain asking "Is the evidence presented infallible, full complete and accurate? Is there no evidence to suggest there is reasonable doubt. What KNOWN evidence are the Police/CPS/Prosecution withholding?"

The Jury foreman is now in no doubt whatsoever. Shame he was told/directed/persuaded to do so in the first instance.

The real criticism is aimed at those who, professionals all, allowed the situation to progress as it did.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Juries in the crown court get told to come to a decision based only on the evidence they are given in the court. When I last did jury service we were warned that jurors could be jailed for researching (e.g. on line) any aspect of the case. I guess that also includes not leaping into a Tardis to go 5 years into the future

I don't see how he can be criticised for saying he'd have come to a different conclusion if different evidence had been presented

That's the very point the guy himself is saying. I'm not criticising him at all, i'm agreeing with him.

He is quite clearly saying that had he been presented with the accurate and full information, KNOWN at the time, then he personally cannot see how it could have got to trial never mind him passing a guilty verdict. Other jurors may still have taken a differing view of course.

So in your opening post when you say "Do these people not have a questioning brain in their head when they first deliberate?" who exactly are you criticising?

That line refers to the Jurors not having a critical brain asking "Is the evidence presented infallible, full complete and accurate? Is there no evidence to suggest there is reasonable doubt. What KNOWN evidence are the Police/CPS/Prosecution withholding?"

The Jury foreman is now in no doubt whatsoever. Shame he was told/directed/persuaded to do so in the first instance.

The real criticism is aimed at those who, professionals all, allowed the situation to progress as it did.

"

Again, as a Juror you're told to accept the evidence as complete - it wouldn't go to trial if the Judge wasn't satisfied. You are not allowed to assume something is missing. You're told to consider the facts you're told and then make a decision on whether you're sure they're guilty or not guilty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Juries in the crown court get told to come to a decision based only on the evidence they are given in the court. When I last did jury service we were warned that jurors could be jailed for researching (e.g. on line) any aspect of the case. I guess that also includes not leaping into a Tardis to go 5 years into the future

I don't see how he can be criticised for saying he'd have come to a different conclusion if different evidence had been presented

That's the very point the guy himself is saying. I'm not criticising him at all, i'm agreeing with him.

He is quite clearly saying that had he been presented with the accurate and full information, KNOWN at the time, then he personally cannot see how it could have got to trial never mind him passing a guilty verdict. Other jurors may still have taken a differing view of course.

So in your opening post when you say "Do these people not have a questioning brain in their head when they first deliberate?" who exactly are you criticising?

That line refers to the Jurors not having a critical brain asking "Is the evidence presented infallible, full complete and accurate? Is there no evidence to suggest there is reasonable doubt. What KNOWN evidence are the Police/CPS/Prosecution withholding?"

The Jury foreman is now in no doubt whatsoever. Shame he was told/directed/persuaded to do so in the first instance.

The real criticism is aimed at those who, professionals all, allowed the situation to progress as it did.

"

Your reasoning is clearly beyond my capabilities then, as I still fail to see why jurors should be second-guessing the evidence they've been presented with and thinking critically about evidence that THEY DIDN'T KNOW EXISTED.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"

That line refers to the Jurors not having a critical brain asking "Is the evidence presented infallible, full complete and accurate? Is there no evidence to suggest there is reasonable doubt. What KNOWN evidence are the Police/CPS/Prosecution withholding?"

"

that anyone can withhold evidence not yet established as the scientific case has yet to be proven is beyond me..

illogical springs to mind..

hey ho

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

That line refers to the Jurors not having a critical brain asking "Is the evidence presented infallible, full complete and accurate? Is there no evidence to suggest there is reasonable doubt. What KNOWN evidence are the Police/CPS/Prosecution withholding?"

that anyone can withhold evidence not yet established as the scientific case has yet to be proven is beyond me..

illogical springs to mind..

hey ho "

Hey ho indeed :

"The programme also reported that a sixth case, of a patient who died after a similar hypoglycaemic episode, WAS NOT PUT TO THE JURY after detectives discounted it when they realised that Colin Norris had not been on shift at the time." my capitalisation.

Which bit of evidence KNOWN at the time but not put to the jury are you struggling with?

Hey ho.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Doh... that isn't evidence, is it? If the prosecution had said he had killed that patient, there clearly wouldn't be a case in that instance because they knew he wasn't there. They also wouldn't have provided evidence of hundreds of other deaths that night where he wasn't present. Their case had to be based on deaths that occurred where he had the opportunity to cause them.

Incidentally it's the job of the defence to present that evidence if they think it's relevant, not the job of the prosecution. If the defence thought other deaths not involving the defendant were relevant they should raise that point. The prosecution doesn't have to run the defence

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

We change as we mature and learn more, so it should come as no surprise that we will reach different conclusions.

The social influence pressure from the other jurors and the judge will be enormous too.

Who'd want to admit to never maturing, not being influenced by others or never changing their minds?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"

That line refers to the Jurors not having a critical brain asking "Is the evidence presented infallible, full complete and accurate? Is there no evidence to suggest there is reasonable doubt. What KNOWN evidence are the Police/CPS/Prosecution withholding?"

that anyone can withhold evidence not yet established as the scientific case has yet to be proven is beyond me..

illogical springs to mind..

hey ho

Hey ho indeed :

"The programme also reported that a sixth case, of a patient who died after a similar hypoglycaemic episode, WAS NOT PUT TO THE JURY after detectives discounted it when they realised that Colin Norris had not been on shift at the time." my capitalisation.

Which bit of evidence KNOWN at the time but not put to the jury are you struggling with?

Hey ho. "

your a bit all over the place..

first its the brains of the jury who you think should have made their decision based on science not then known..

and now your going on about another person who died and for whom there was no case to be answered..

consequently the jury did not hear about that persons death any any possible similarities to the other 5..

but that's not what you meant when you had a go in your op was it..?

thats me out..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Doh... that isn't evidence, is it? If the prosecution had said he had killed that patient, there clearly wouldn't be a case in that instance because they knew he wasn't there. They also wouldn't have provided evidence of hundreds of other deaths that night where he wasn't present. Their case had to be based on deaths that occurred where he had the opportunity to cause them.

Incidentally it's the job of the defence to present that evidence if they think it's relevant, not the job of the prosecution. If the defence thought other deaths not involving the defendant were relevant they should raise that point. The prosecution doesn't have to run the defence"

So you can't kill someone if you're not there?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Doh... that isn't evidence, is it? If the prosecution had said he had killed that patient, there clearly wouldn't be a case in that instance because they knew he wasn't there. They also wouldn't have provided evidence of hundreds of other deaths that night where he wasn't present. Their case had to be based on deaths that occurred where he had the opportunity to cause them.

Incidentally it's the job of the defence to present that evidence if they think it's relevant, not the job of the prosecution. If the defence thought other deaths not involving the defendant were relevant they should raise that point. The prosecution doesn't have to run the defence

So you can't kill someone if you're not there? "

So you are now saying he killed this other person?

Of course you're not. Nor were the police. Which is why they didn't present a case that he had killed this other person (or any of many other people who died)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Doh... that isn't evidence, is it? If the prosecution had said he had killed that patient, there clearly wouldn't be a case in that instance because they knew he wasn't there. They also wouldn't have provided evidence of hundreds of other deaths that night where he wasn't present. Their case had to be based on deaths that occurred where he had the opportunity to cause them.

Incidentally it's the job of the defence to present that evidence if they think it's relevant, not the job of the prosecution. If the defence thought other deaths not involving the defendant were relevant they should raise that point. The prosecution doesn't have to run the defence

So you can't kill someone if you're not there?

So you are now saying he killed this other person?

Of course you're not. Nor were the police. Which is why they didn't present a case that he had killed this other person (or any of many other people who died)"

It's possible he did kill this other person.

It's equally possible that if six people died ( evidently very old people )of very similar reasons and he didn't kill one of them, then he very likely didn't kill any of them.

The Jury Foreman now seems to be saying that he is absolutely sure that the second applies. i.e. he is far beyond any reasonable doubt.

He also says that had he known of this KNOWN evidence at the time, then he would not have expected it to have even got to trial. A point also re-iterated above ( by Scorpions i think) that the CPS themselves state this to be their view.

I agree with the guy. On both points.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The other case isn't evidence. Let's imagine he was caught bang to rights for each death: CCTV evidence, finger prints, confessions, eye witnesses, scientific evidence. They would be evidence for the crimes being investigated and for the trial. They are relevant to the charges. That someone else died and there's no apparent connection isn't evidence that is related to those charges and there'd be no point in the prosecution bringing it forward.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Imagine you were brought to court for a speeding offence and your lawyer said 'it couldn't possibly be my client, look someone else down the road was going too fast too' or even worse 'someone else down the road wasn't speeding'.

You'd say that was irrelevant.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Juries in the crown court get told to come to a decision based only on the evidence they are given in the court. When I last did jury service we were warned that jurors could be jailed for researching (e.g. on line) any aspect of the case. I guess that also includes not leaping into a Tardis to go 5 years into the future

I don't see how he can be criticised for saying he'd have come to a different conclusion if different evidence had been presented

That's the very point the guy himself is saying. I'm not criticising him at all, i'm agreeing with him.

He is quite clearly saying that had he been presented with the accurate and full information, KNOWN at the time, then he personally cannot see how it could have got to trial never mind him passing a guilty verdict. Other jurors may still have taken a differing view of course.

So in your opening post when you say "Do these people not have a questioning brain in their head when they first deliberate?" who exactly are you criticising?

That line refers to the Jurors not having a critical brain asking "Is the evidence presented infallible, full complete and accurate? Is there no evidence to suggest there is reasonable doubt. What KNOWN evidence are the Police/CPS/Prosecution withholding?"

The Jury foreman is now in no doubt whatsoever. Shame he was told/directed/persuaded to do so in the first instance.

The real criticism is aimed at those who, professionals all, allowed the situation to progress as it did.

Again, as a Juror you're told to accept the evidence as complete - it wouldn't go to trial if the Judge wasn't satisfied. You are not allowed to assume something is missing. You're told to consider the facts you're told and then make a decision on whether you're sure they're guilty or not guilty. "
.

Trial by jury is not just about evidence,if it was you wouldn't need a jury the judge could do it.

The whole point of a jury is a trial by peers who can ignore the judge and vote as they see fit, regardless of evidence.

It used to remain as the perfect solution to the will of the people, ie I can shoot the peadophile that raped my child but still get off even though I'm clearly guilty of a state crime.

The same must work in reverse.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And if you shoot the paediatrician by mistake because you're so dim you can't recognise the difference? Should the so called state crime be prosecuted or should the jury let the person off because his heart was in the right place?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"And if you shoot the paediatrician by mistake because you're so dim you can't recognise the difference? Should the so called state crime be prosecuted or should the jury let the person off because his heart was in the right place?"
.

Hence the jury make the decision. Not the fucking judge...

He can say what he fucking likes he can instruct you ever way from fucking Sunday... But he can't overturn your decision!.

Because that's the whole point of trial by jury.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No the point of trial by jury is to give people a fair trial according to the law, not to pander to the mob

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No the point of trial by jury is to give people a fair trial according to the law, not to pander to the mob"
.

No a judge could that. He knows the law better than the jury?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yep and that's an alternative that is adopted in some cases. Just because there are other ways of delivering a fair trial according to the law, it doesn't follow that trial by jury shouldn't be intended to deliver a fair trial according to the law.

Of course, if you go to a judge making the decision, he could give corrupt decisions too if he decided that mob rule condoned the murder of particular groups of people.

So let's start with paediatricians. Then paedophiles. Then the elderly. Then the disabled. As long as we can find enough people to jeer and hate those groups, we can say that a group of 12 people is able to vote for whatever unfair verdict they like and that's the purpose of the system

That of course is complete bollocks.

Juries can do maverick things, but most reasonable people would want them to use the evidence fairly. Even if we don't like the defendant or the victim.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top