Quote:
Originally Posted by DtheP47
I can understand where you are coming from Margaret but I personally think it's better than all the alternatives that could be used to reach a verdict. And yes I know juries can be "got at" but less of a chance of a dodgy verdict than the old boys network and all that entails.
I also like the considerations of the victims statements by the judge when looking at sentencing.
|
I was thinking purely of this case......and I wasn't suggesting that the jury had been 'got at'...more along the lines that the case had been played out so that the jury had doubts planted(evidence can be given in ways that mean there is doubt rather than certainty in their minds and I am pretty sure she would have had some very competent defence lawyer....maybe the prosecution didn't try too hard either on the instructions from people in high places, maybe there was collusion between the two - again instructed by the same elite. We won't ever know).....and if there is a shadow of a doubt then you cannot return any verdict other than 'not guilty'.
It has to be admitted that she has friends in high places and that she has admitted to having done some very dubious things to get 'news' stories...like paying the police for information.
Not the actions of someone with integrity.
I think that if this had been you or me we would be looking at a long time in the slammer.