|
Post by salopstick on Mar 1, 2016 12:22:57 GMT
When's the verdict announced? Today? As soon as they can decide.
|
|
|
Post by haway on Mar 1, 2016 12:26:28 GMT
I've not been following the case that closely recently, has there been any strong evidence to suggest he be found guilty to the more serious charges he pleaded not guilty to?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 1, 2016 12:27:42 GMT
When's the verdict announced? Today? When the jury reaches a decision - or are you hinting at some conspiracy which means they will reach their decision at a time already predetermined?
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 1, 2016 12:30:26 GMT
When's the verdict announced? Today? When the jury reaches a decision - or are you hinting at some conspiracy which means they will reach their decision at a time already predetermined? No. I just thought that Sky might have bought the rights and moved it to 4pm on Sunday. Seriously though. I thought they might reconvene at a given time to give the verdict.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Mar 1, 2016 12:34:40 GMT
I've not been following the case that closely recently, has there been any strong evidence to suggest he be found guilty to the more serious charges he pleaded not guilty to? In terms of concrete proof, the only thing that comes really close is his message about just wanting to rip her trousers off. That's proof about his intentions but other than that it's simply a his word against hers.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 1, 2016 12:36:07 GMT
I've not been following the case that closely recently, has there been any strong evidence to suggest he be found guilty to the more serious charges he pleaded not guilty to? It's my opinion he pleaded guilty to the charges they had concrete evidence on. These two charges are based pretty much on who said what and some evidence which may or may not be considered circumstantial He's admitted wanting to have sex with her. I can see a majority verdict coming in meaning not guilty. I would be surprised if all 12 voted guilty
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 1, 2016 12:36:17 GMT
When the jury reaches a decision - or are you hinting at some conspiracy which means they will reach their decision at a time already predetermined? No. I just thought that Sky might have bought the rights and moved it to 4pm on Sunday. Seriously though. I thought they might reconvene at a given time to give the verdict. they sit in a room deliberating for as long as it takes. when they come to a decision the foreperson notifies one of the clerks (who tend to be stationed outside the room) that they're ready to go back in. if it goes on for too long (discretionary depending on the judge and case) the judge can ask if they have reached a decision or if they are likely to come to a unanimous decision within a particular period of time. basically, a case of how long is a piece of string really
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 1, 2016 12:38:01 GMT
When the jury reaches a decision - or are you hinting at some conspiracy which means they will reach their decision at a time already predetermined? No. I just thought that Sky might have bought the rights and moved it to 4pm on Sunday. Seriously though. I thought they might reconvene at a given time to give the verdict. No, it doesn't work that way. In fact they will not be put under pressure to reach a verdict today. If they want to take two or three days they are entitled to do so. If they haven't reached a verdict by tea time they'll be sent away for the night and will meet again tomorrow morning. The fact that it has to be a unanimous verdict means it could take some time - although a result this afternoon is always possible - depends how split they are in their discussions.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 1, 2016 12:42:49 GMT
I've not been following the case that closely recently, has there been any strong evidence to suggest he be found guilty to the more serious charges he pleaded not guilty to? It's my opinion he pleaded guilty to the charges they had concrete evidence on. These two charges are based pretty much on who said what and some evidence which may or may not be considered circumstantial He's admitted wanting to have sex with her. I can see a majority verdict coming in meaning not guilty. I would be surprised if all 12 voted guilty yep. there are a few things where it shows Johnson to be fairly muddled up and inconsistent (saying he stopped the kissing and went no further because he felt guilty and knew it was wrong, basically a sudden pang of conscience but then messaged her afterwards asking for another meet which seems contradictory really....her being able to describe his "hair down there" which apparently was not the usual state it was in judging by photos of his area both before and after the alleged incidents...him saying how she felt really turned on but him saying he just meant how passionately she was kissing, not how she felt in her private area). as you say, it's one person's word against anothers so both barristers have largely focussed on trying to prove the other one is lying and therefore discredit their testimony. i'd say a lot of it infers that more went on than he's admitting to but proves it beyond any reasonable doubt? not sure myself. having said that, there have been several legal arguments where the public gallery have been dismissed and things have been discussed that the media weren't allowed to report so some of that may have a bearing on the verdict (although we have no idea what any of that was) just thankful hes already plead guilty to 2 charges so even if he's cleared of these 2, he's still getting done.
|
|
|
Post by haway on Mar 1, 2016 12:45:06 GMT
I've not been following the case that closely recently, has there been any strong evidence to suggest he be found guilty to the more serious charges he pleaded not guilty to? In terms of concrete proof, the only thing that comes really close is his message about just wanting to rip her trousers off. That's proof about his intentions but other than that it's simply a his word against hers. I've not been following the case that closely recently, has there been any strong evidence to suggest he be found guilty to the more serious charges he pleaded not guilty to? It's my opinion he pleaded guilty to the charges they had concrete evidence on. These two charges are based pretty much on who said what and some evidence which may or may not be considered circumstantial He's admitted wanting to have sex with her. I can see a majority verdict coming in meaning not guilty. I would be surprised if all 12 voted guilty Cheers lads, he'll likely get a lowered sentence then. With no concrete evidence, he can't really be found guilty & as he pleaded guilty to grooming and sexual activity (I think) then he's going to have a lowered sentence due to an early plea. 2 years probably.
|
|
|
Post by jonnynico on Mar 1, 2016 12:50:28 GMT
got to be a 12-0 verdict judge said no majority can be accepted.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 1, 2016 12:56:01 GMT
In terms of concrete proof, the only thing that comes really close is his message about just wanting to rip her trousers off. That's proof about his intentions but other than that it's simply a his word against hers. It's my opinion he pleaded guilty to the charges they had concrete evidence on. These two charges are based pretty much on who said what and some evidence which may or may not be considered circumstantial He's admitted wanting to have sex with her. I can see a majority verdict coming in meaning not guilty. I would be surprised if all 12 voted guilty Cheers lads, he'll likely get a lowered sentence then. With no concrete evidence, he can't really be found guilty & as he pleaded guilty to grooming and sexual activity (I think) then he's going to have a lowered sentence due to an early plea. 2 years probably. wasn't an early plea though he only plead guilty when the case started NOT when he was charged 12 months earlier. the judge has already told the jury to take that into account (as it backs up the idea of him being deceitful for his own gain which could therefore call into question the honesty of his entire testimony) and has said he will also take it into consideration as well. they also don't need concrete evidence either. if it can be proved that his version of events are likely to be lies then the only other version they have is hers which would then give a guilty verdict. they are there to decide which one is telling the truth, no in between areas as it were; either she is (guilty) or he is (not guilty) as far as the court is concerned (i was advised of that fact when i sat as a juror during a rape trial..wasn't aware of it myself beforehand)
|
|
|
Post by chad on Mar 1, 2016 12:56:41 GMT
got to be a 12-0 verdict judge said no majority can be accepted. That's correct. Though God knows why. As they have not reached a quick verdict it would seem that at least one juror thinks not guilty. I think he'll get off and just get done for grooming. Don't know what sentence that carries. Wouldn't be surprised if he gets a suspended sentence
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 1, 2016 12:58:49 GMT
got to be a 12-0 verdict judge said no majority can be accepted. That's correct. Though God knows why. As they have not reached a quick verdict it would seem that at least one juror thinks not guilty. I think he'll get off and just get done for grooming. Don't know what sentence that carries. Wouldn't be surprised if he gets a suspended sentence they've only been out for an hour mate! that really isn't a long time at all for a jury. even if a juror does think not guilty, i can tell you the jurors will spend hours trying to debate it and that can quite often result in jurors changing their mind from their initial thoughts. we'll just have to wait and see as (as i said earlier) there were goings on in court that the media weren't allowed to even report on so there may well be lots of info that could swing it one way or the other that none of us have any idea about.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 1, 2016 13:22:02 GMT
Cheers lads, he'll likely get a lowered sentence then. With no concrete evidence, he can't really be found guilty & as he pleaded guilty to grooming and sexual activity (I think) then he's going to have a lowered sentence due to an early plea. 2 years probably. wasn't an early plea though he only plead guilty when the case started NOT when he was charged 12 months earlier. the judge has already told the jury to take that into account (as it backs up the idea of him being deceitful for his own gain which could therefore call into question the honesty of his entire testimony) and has said he will also take it into consideration as well. they also don't need concrete evidence either. if it can be proved that his version of events are likely to be lies then the only other version they have is hers which would then give a guilty verdict. they are there to decide which one is telling the truth, no in between areas as it were; either she is (guilty) or he is (not guilty) as far as the court is concerned (i was advised of that fact when i sat as a juror during a rape trial..wasn't aware of it myself beforehand) Funnily enough I can imagine you sat in a room with 11 strangers thinking to yourself 'What the fuck am I doing here?'.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 1, 2016 13:25:27 GMT
wasn't an early plea though he only plead guilty when the case started NOT when he was charged 12 months earlier. the judge has already told the jury to take that into account (as it backs up the idea of him being deceitful for his own gain which could therefore call into question the honesty of his entire testimony) and has said he will also take it into consideration as well. they also don't need concrete evidence either. if it can be proved that his version of events are likely to be lies then the only other version they have is hers which would then give a guilty verdict. they are there to decide which one is telling the truth, no in between areas as it were; either she is (guilty) or he is (not guilty) as far as the court is concerned (i was advised of that fact when i sat as a juror during a rape trial..wasn't aware of it myself beforehand) Funnily enough I can imagine you sat in a room with 11 strangers thinking to yourself 'What the fuck am I doing here?'. don't even know why they chose me mate. as you know, i'm one of those people who just agrees with everyone to keep the peace anyway and never tries argue my own point
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2016 13:50:58 GMT
Sure it's been said, but must it be a unanimous not guilty, or if the jury is split then he's off...So 11-1 means NG, or must it be 12-0 saying NG.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 1, 2016 14:06:13 GMT
Sure it's been said, but must it be a unanimous not guilty, or if the jury is split then he's off...So 11-1 means NG, or must it be 12-0 saying NG. anything but 12-0 guilty means he's got off (As the onus is on proving him guilty rather than anyone needing to prove him not guilty) but that's only for these 2 charges remember...will still receive some kind of sentence for the 2 he's plead guilty to
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 1, 2016 14:09:05 GMT
Judges always say it has to be unanimous at the start of the jury deliberations, but if the jury advises that there is no reasonable prospect of a unanimous decision, the judge can decide to accept a 10-2 decision either way. If they can't get that, it's a hung jury and the judge will then decide whether or not to order a re-trial, and if not, the case falls.
Personally, I think it's a complete waste of time trying to predict a verdict on the basis of media reports. When I sat on a jury in a quite high profile case, one thing which struck me was that unless you had sat through all the evidence, heard the cross-examinations, seen the demeanour, body language etc of witnesses you were in no position to form a judgement. Even the most full and competent media reports can at best only give the reader/viewer a very limited part of the picture.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 1, 2016 14:11:54 GMT
Judges always say it has to be unanimous at the start of the jury deliberations, but if the jury advises that there is no reasonable prospect of a unanimous decision, the judge can decide to accept a 10-2 decision either way. If they can't get that, it's a hung jury and the judge will then decide whether or not to order a re-trial, and if not, the case falls. Personally, I think it's a complete waste of time trying to predict a verdict on the basis of media reports. When I sat on a jury in a quite high profile case, one thing which struck me was that unless you had sat through all the evidence, heard the cross-examinations, seen the demeanour, body language etc of witnesses you were in no position to form a judgement. Even the most full and competent media reports can at best only give the reader/viewer a very limited part of the picture. the judge has already said he won't be accepting a majority verdict Malcolm...in fact he specifically stated that although many may have heard of majority verdicts, he will not be accepting one in this case: “When you retire you must reach verdicts upon which you are all agreed. I can only accept unanimous verdicts in this case - 12-0 is the only possible score,” he said. “You may have heard of majority verdicts. They do not apply in this case and they may never apply in this case. What you must strive to do is reach unanimous verdicts.” completely agree re: media reports...although most are to be fair giving quotes of what has/hasn't been said (rather than simply paraphrasing), there have been several times where the public have been dismissed and the media have not legally been able to report on the goings on at those times so there will be plenty of info we are not party to which the jurors are
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 1, 2016 14:25:59 GMT
Judges always say it has to be unanimous at the start of the jury deliberations, but if the jury advises that there is no reasonable prospect of a unanimous decision, the judge can decide to accept a 10-2 decision either way. If they can't get that, it's a hung jury and the judge will then decide whether or not to order a re-trial, and if not, the case falls. Personally, I think it's a complete waste of time trying to predict a verdict on the basis of media reports. When I sat on a jury in a quite high profile case, one thing which struck me was that unless you had sat through all the evidence, heard the cross-examinations, seen the demeanour, body language etc of witnesses you were in no position to form a judgement. Even the most full and competent media reports can at best only give the reader/viewer a very limited part of the picture. the judge has already said he won't be accepting a majority verdict Malcolm...in fact he specifically stated that although many may have heard of majority verdicts, he will not be accepting one in this case: “When you retire you must reach verdicts upon which you are all agreed. I can only accept unanimous verdicts in this case - 12-0 is the only possible score,” he said. “You may have heard of majority verdicts. They do not apply in this case and they may never apply in this case. What you must strive to do is reach unanimous verdicts.” completely agree re: media reports...although most are to be fair giving quotes of what has/hasn't been said (rather than simply paraphrasing), there have been several times where the public have been dismissed and the media have not legally been able to report on the goings on at those times so there will be plenty of info we are not party to which the jurors are Fair enough, Mick. I hadn't seen that ( mainly because I don't choose to follow these rather sordid cases in any detail). If he was that specific I assume he'll stick to that - although they do always say at the start that it must be a unanimous verdict and then sometimes row back from that. That happened in the case I was on - we were told it must be unanimous. When we were called back in, as the foreman I told the judge that we couldn't reach a unanimous verdict. He said we must keep trying, so out we went to try to go over the same ground that we'd been over 100 times already. He told us not to ring the bell unless we had a unanimous verdict. In the end we just gave up deliberating because there was no point, and jurors were either reading a book or in one case, sleeping !. It was 10-2 and it would have remained 10-2 until the end of time. Eventually he called us back in to tell us he would accept 10-2. We went out, immediately rang the bell and were back in less than 5 mins. But overall I was impressed with the jury process. I'm convinced we made the right decision - but then again I was one of the 10 !
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 1, 2016 15:55:38 GMT
jury being brought back in.....
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 1, 2016 16:05:19 GMT
no decision, jury sent home for the day.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Mar 1, 2016 16:07:17 GMT
Looks like it's not going to be the 12-0 needed.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 1, 2016 16:10:21 GMT
Looks like it's not going to be the 12-0 needed. doesn't really mean anything mate. trial i was on we were told it had to be unanimous..took 3 days until we finally did get a unanimous verdict. Jurors can go into it one day knowing what they'll say but after hours of discussions, running through it in your head overnight etc. can easily change their mind for or against. all it means is that it isn't unanimous at the moment but taking their time over it is 100% the right thing to do. it's horrible knowing that your decision can completely effect the rest of someone's life but in a case as high profile as this one (i know that shouldn't make any difference), the jurors will want to be as certain as they possibly can be about which way their decision goes.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2016 16:31:59 GMT
If he gets off, is he likely to do time for the 2 offences that he pleaded guilty to. I saw one quote, summat about " digital penetration"...What the fuck did he put up her....Ahhh...I see...he fingered her...Allegedly...
|
|
|
Post by haway on Mar 1, 2016 16:36:59 GMT
Anyone ever seen the film 12 angry men?
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Mar 1, 2016 16:44:19 GMT
Anyone ever seen the film 12 angry men? Great film.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 1, 2016 16:48:52 GMT
thing is that when there is no forensic evidence and it's just 1 person's word against the others it's never going to be clear cut or straight forward so there's bound to be a lot of hesitation. if the jury are anything like the one i was on although it does help to hear the other juror's viewpoints and see things from other perspectives, it's hard to compute those ideas and think them through properly when you're in the room and everyone's trying to get their ideas across....things can become clearer when you listen to those ideas and have some quiet thinking time to yourself that night without others shouting across a table.
really, really don't envy them...i spent 10 days in a bloody canteen in Stafford waiting and hoping desperately to be picked for a really juicy case and by the end would have given anything to have not been picked at all. it's a horribly stressful experience for the jurors (as well as the defendant and the alleged victim)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2016 16:53:45 GMT
If he gets off, is he likely to do time for the 2 offences that he pleaded guilty to. I saw one quote, summat about " digital penetration"...What the fuck did he put up her....Ahhh...I see...he fingered her...Allegedly... He fingered her? Maybe they should check his age as he maybe 15 also. I thought you went scuba diving after the age of 18.
|
|