Shoreham Air Show Plane Crash

[Ex-Ascot]

The defense made their closing speech yesterday.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-47419415

Interesting to see what M'Lord has to say in his guidance to the jury. Then I would love to be a fly on the wall in the jury room. I wonder if all those ladies will be sympathetic to the defence's approach.

[Ex-Ascot]

Judge: Jury 'must focus on why pilot crashed'

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-47456919

What happens if the jury all say we have no bloody idea? Criminal law is not my specialist area. Can a juror abstain?

[Pontius Navigator]

An individual juror does not abstain. The jury as a whole, no names, may fail to reach a decision. The judge may then seek a majority verdict. I am not sure what determination he uses.

I think if no verdict is reached then the whole circus might be repeated.

[603DX]

I agree with PN's post above. I was peripherally involved in a case in which two men had been killed in an accident at a bridge. The evidence presented for both prosecution and defence was as factual and correct as it was possible to be, yet at the trial the jury was unable to understand the technicalities, and was not able to reach a verdict. The judge ordered a re-trial, and once again the fresh jury was flummoxed, so this time the judge dismissed the case.

[Boac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-h ... e-47463443

[Cacophonix]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-h ... e-47463443

A terrible pity but after the limp dicked display performance last year and in the light of the Shoreham hysteria I can only say that I am not surprised.

viewtopic.php?p=139867#p139867

Whatever happened to the stiff upper lip?

Caco

[Flintstone]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-h ... e-47463443

She added the effects that the Shoreham air crash had on air displays "certainly had an impact"

Clumsy choice of words.

[Boac]

Jury out again tomorrow.

[Undried Plum]

I've heard it said that the longer a jury deliberates: the greater the chance of an acquittal.

Juries never discuss the basis of their verdict publically, but I'd love to be fly on the wall to hear why somebody in that room thinks the defendant is innocent.

[Pontius Navigator]

UDP, there is common sense, fact, logic and reason and the law.

Will that be the 4th day?

[Pontius Navigator]

The judge should press the jury for a unanimous verdict. In the Crown Court the judge must not, in any event, suggest that a majority is acceptable until after 2 hours and 10 minutes. This was originally 2 hours but it was extended to allow time for the jury to settle after retiring.

There is no set time limit on how long or short deliberations can take. The judge will allow the jury to take as much time as they need. If that means taking three or four days or a week or even longer to reach a conclusion, they can do that.

The judge will allow extra time for a complex trial. Clearly this is complex. I see one source quotes 11-1 or 10-2 for a majority verdict but I have not seen out suggested that he would allow a majority verdict yet.

[DASTOCKS]

I've heard it said that the longer a jury deliberates: the greater the chance of an acquittal.

Juries never discuss the basis of their verdict publically, but I'd love to be fly on the wall to hear why somebody in that room thinks the defendant is innocent.

The issue for the jury to decide is whether they believe the prosecution have shown the defendant to be guilty.

We know a lot about this crash in terms of *what* happened. The defendant is unable to explain *why* the crash happened and I don't feel this court case has added much, if anything, to our knowledge here. Having lost a few days of my life many years ago as a result of a road accident, I fully accept that the defendant has nothing to hide in terms of his memory of the flight and crash. I'm not especially convinced by the 'cognitive impairment' theory, but the defence do not have to prove anything.

[Pontius Navigator]

On your memory loss, we had a chief, last memory was On his motorbike overtaking a lorry. Next was recovery in hospital.

I think I said earlier, what is happening is stored in electrical memory. When you sleep it is backed up to chemical memory. Wipe the electrical memory a nd it's gone. That memory can be restored from external inputs and logic and while it may not be false memory it is certainly not true memory which is why it is important to question witnesses before their memory is compromised.

In this case it was essential that the Defence ensured Hill 's evidence excluded any false memory.

[Undried Plum]

"I have no memory of that" is a piss-poor defence in any criminal case, isn't it?

[ribrash]

I'm sure that if some of you on here had been sat in Andy's seat on that day,then you would be saying,yes I made a mistake.Sorry.

[Flintstone]

I like to think I'd have taken the escape route, I'm happy being a coward when it comes to risk (after spending years of my youth involved in dangerous sports).

I like to think that but then perhaps the fact that I'm not drawn to displaying aerobatic aircraft (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, it's just not my thing) means I'd not find myself having to make the choice in the first place. As for being on the jury I'd genuinely have liked to hear the whole story.

[llondel]

I've heard it said that the longer a jury deliberates: the greater the chance of an acquittal.

Juries never discuss the basis of their verdict publically, but I'd love to be fly on the wall to hear why somebody in that room thinks the defendant is innocent.

That was something that surprised me about the US system, where it appears that jurors are free to talk about it all afterwards, and for high-profile trials are almost expected to.

[k3k3]

Not Guilty on all counts.

Just announced on BBC.

[Capetonian]

Excellent news.

[Boac]

Good job I was not on the jury. My decision would firmly have been negligence. This will sit very badly with the bereaved.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -11-people

Grauniad inaccurate as usual.