I love oft used expression get it to half time and see where we are. Used in Crown Court by barristers all the time. A good way of gauging how things are and usually not wrong, in my now, long, experience of it. Actually I enjoy the theatre of court, when many fear it. It is a reckoning. The one place I think where bullshit will always be outed, rather than just sufferedHave just finished watching this.
Not calling your client in a murder trial is always a huge shout, but it’s ultimately their call. No one is ever going to do that without unequivocal consent from the punter.
Didn’t think defence counsel was especially inspiring, but he wasn’t terrible, and certainly wasn’t working with great material.
Thought her family presented as lovely people, his were cunts, as was he. That’s why not giving evidence was a huge mistake by him imo. He needed to fess up to being a ****, but that he didn’t murder her. He was too far behind in points at half time to not give evidence.
I think society is definitely better off without him in it, irrespective of his guilt.
And would I have been sure enough to convict him? I believe I would.
An intersting watch. Identifying the accused from the witness box, especially noteworthy. That would never happen in England and Wales, for better or worse.
The victim seemed like a truly lovely person. RIP.
Agree with all that - except I'd have been confident of the prosecution not reaching the required threshold. Beyond reasonable doubt? Hmmmm really. Even without him being called.Have just finished watching this.
Not calling your client in a murder trial is always a huge shout, but it’s ultimately their call. No one is ever going to do that without unequivocal consent from the punter.
Didn’t think defence counsel was especially inspiring, but he wasn’t terrible, and certainly wasn’t working with great material.
Thought her family presented as lovely people, his were cunts, as was he. That’s why not giving evidence was a huge mistake by him imo. He needed to fess up to being a ****, but that he didn’t murder her. He was too far behind in points at half time to not give evidence.
I think society is definitely better off without him in it, irrespective of his guilt.
And would I have been sure enough to convict him? I believe I would.
An intersting watch. Identifying the accused from the witness box, especially noteworthy. That would never happen in England and Wales, for better or worse.
The victim seemed like a truly lovely person. RIP.
It wasn’t just that he was a **** though, although that certainly was a factor as it provided propensity and motive. Cunts like that are far more likely to murder their wives. You had what his dying wife had said to two people, the fact he didn’t call 999 even though he’d used her phone for a selfie only moments before (and in fact he rang his father, and hers in error) the fact he went no comment in interview, (plus the weird questions he asked at the end of his no comment interview) as well as the fact he chose not to give evidence, meaning on the two occasions he was given the opportunity to give an account of himself, in relation to the death of his wife, he elected not to - all point to his guilt. I actually didn’t think fwiw the prosecutor would be an especially effective cross examiner, but I’m guessing there to some extent.Agree with all that - except I'd have been confident of the prosecution not reaching the required threshold. Beyond reasonable doubt? Hmmmm really. Even without him being called.
If we're hoping to lock everyone up for being cunts - at least the trams will be less crowded.
Yes, that’s what surprised me. This wasn’t (based on what I saw) one of those ‘we’re ahead on points, let’s not risk fucking that up’ scenarios, it seemed clear (based on what I saw) that he needed to present himself to the jury to try and put some doubt in their minds.I love oft used expression get it to half time and see where we are. Used in Crown Court by barristers all the time. A good way of gauging how things are and usually not wrong,
I bow to your superiority, as detestable and cuntish as the accused clearly was I'm not "beyond reasonable doubt" based on that documentary. Even when you add in the hindsight looks, glances and dramatic music.It wasn’t just that he was a **** though, although that certainly was a factor as it provided propensity and motive. Cunts like that are far more likely to murder their wives. You had what his dying wife had said to two people, the fact he didn’t call 999 even though he’d used her phone for a selfie only moments before (and in fact he rang his father, and hers in error) the fact he went no comment in interview, (plus the weird questions he asked at the end of his no comment interview) as well as the fact he chose not to give evidence, meaning on the two occasions he was given the opportunity to give an account of himself, in relation to the death of his wife, he elected not to - all point to his guilt. I actually didn’t think fwiw the prosecutor would be an especially effective cross examiner, but I’m guessing there to some extent.
I’m not saying going no comment or declining to give evidence should ever point to someone’s guilt alone, or that there aren’t certain circumstances where it’s actually the correct course of action for someone accused of a crime, but we are talking here about the murder of his wife which is something one would expect a husband to feel the need to explain himself in some way. Someone on a jury is perfectly entitled to take that into account when weighing someone’s guilt up, otherwise no one would ever give an account of themselves in interview or give evidence in their own trial which would render the trial system to be farcical. That course of action also gave his counsel far less material to work with when addressing the jury.
The test for guilt in England and Wales is to be sure, it’s still beyond reasonable doubt in Scotland, although they amount to the same thing, and up to the evidence prior to going up Arthur’s Seat I was definitely in the camp of how can the jury possibly be sure, but I changed my view when the evidence turned to the final moments of her life and his behaviour in the aftermath.
Being sure doesn’t mean 100% sure, and nor does beyond reasonable doubt mean beyond any possible doubt - they both allow for possible but very unlikely prospects of innocence and I feel that threshold, based on the evidence, his appalling character, his demonstrable controlling and utterly disrespectful attitude towards her and his failure to explain himself all conspire for me to conclude he did it.
As is not giving evidence: Black youths and the travelling community being two such examples.Sometimes being an autocratic male head of the household is cultural - as much as we loathe it.
His dad was an absolute ****, dripping with malevolence, but of course that wasn’t before the jury. Perhaps tellingly so, given the fact of that phone call.I thought it was a reasonable doubt until the final bit of her saying she’d been pushed and basically him phoning his dad to say he done it (that’s what I reckon he did, because his dad was a **** as well) the other thing that stood out that even though we say say certain parts of our community have westernized, quite clearly there are lots who haven’t and still live in the Middle Ages.
Ye the engagement ring comment summed him up, twat.His dad was an absolute ****, dripping with malevolence, but of course that wasn’t before the jury. Perhaps tellingly so, given the fact of that phone call.