honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
John Marsh wrote:
Jury Discharged - Failure to reach a verdict
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/30/rolf...ct-indecent-assault/
I dont understand this. They weren't deliberating for long enough to decide, surely?
Honey, I also have had great difficulty in trying to piece together how the system is suppose to work.
From my work experience as an accountant within industry, commerce and local government plus following the stock markets I now see clearly that the justice system in regards police, CPS and trials is very similar to accounting results reporting. That is the aim is not justice but trials with convictions. In accountancy to present the best results there are “cover ups”, “creative accounting” and “straight out lying”. (There are some reasonably honest companies and honest reporting. And honest when all is going well)
So ideally a trial is for presenting “the evidence” for a jury to base their decision on. The evidence for a guilty verdict is ideally suppose to be such that a group of nobodies "off the street" to have no difficulty in concluding that the presumed innocent accused is now guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. And also ideally the judge is supposed to ensure a jury is appropriately directed to ensure a “fair trial” and thus in the ideally rare instant or unexpected turn of events the accused is not guilty or at least the evidence is such that the “beyond reasonable doubt” level cannot be reached then the jury will be able to see the case as such and return not guilty verdict.
That returning “not guilty” is one of the misleading requirements because if the evidence is such where a jury is abused by the judge, police and CPS and maybe according to Prosecutor Jonathan Rees definition “acting wickedly” (that is encouraging possible witness lies as evidence like the misleading accounts reporting) thus a jury is split in trying to decide who is telling the truth. (A situation that is emotional not evidential). The jury understandably can not decide guilt or not guilt. They just do not know .
Thus the jury in the Rolf Harris case must of been split on their feelings of guilt. Not say 9 - 3 but more towards a 6 - 6 level split thus lacking enough in numbers to put emotional pressure on say three or four to at least bring the numbers to a majority of 10 - 2.
That is how I guess it works as the system “covers up” and will not admit problems as that will not make it easy to hookwink the public so they can continue to act wickedly to get convictions on emotion. Forget evidence, accountant don't need accurate reporting so why should courts rely on accurate evidence it only gets in the way.
So my guess is that near even split from the 12 members of the jury (6 - 6) who must of activated their little grey cells over the long week-end plus others who took a firm position based on their beliefs.
Forums 
