I've just watched a documentary on the Australian death cap mushroom case- Erin Patterson- who was convicted guilty of three counts of murder, one of attempted murder.
I really think I would have struggled to have been on that jury though. There did seem a lot of damning evidence but then, she was clearly intelligent. Would she have made the mistakes she did if she really planed it all? Maybe it's arrogance though that makes people think police won't investigate properly. The motive seemed lacking though. Would a grudge against her ex and his family really be enough to do that?
It must be so difficult though- if it's a high profile case and people's lives will be so heavily affected by the verdict. Has anyone here been called? What was it like? Was it hard to agree on a verdict?
I hope I don't get called to be honest. Partly because I freelance too. I wonder who pays for your time.
The other things are just the unfairness of it really. That sometimes, prior evidence is deemed inadmissible. Even in this case- her ex husband strongly believed she had attempted to poison him in the past. It was serious enough for him to have been in a coma at one stage but- I think that information was inadmissible at the trial. Just the instruction not to read up on it too. Obviously, trial by media is a real thing. It wouldn't be right to be swayed by that. But surely- to make such a huge decision on someone's innocence or guilt, you'd want to hear all you could. About their background, character, prior convictions etc.
Plus- it's a sort of theatre in the court room. It deeply troubles me that cases that look so cut and dry- like the OJ case can be swayed entirely by clever, charismatic and entertaining defence councils. It does make you wonder about the amount of times they might be getting it wrong- both ways. With criminals walking free and innocent people being wrongly convicted.
I suppose it's the only way we can try and serve justice. Especially when people lie but still, it seems pretty scary really. Have there been cases where you could see it both ways? That they could either be innocent or guilty? I wish people were at least honest- once they'd been caught- to admit it. It must be agonozing for the families of victims.
I really think I would have struggled to have been on that jury though. There did seem a lot of damning evidence but then, she was clearly intelligent. Would she have made the mistakes she did if she really planed it all? Maybe it's arrogance though that makes people think police won't investigate properly. The motive seemed lacking though. Would a grudge against her ex and his family really be enough to do that?
It must be so difficult though- if it's a high profile case and people's lives will be so heavily affected by the verdict. Has anyone here been called? What was it like? Was it hard to agree on a verdict?
I hope I don't get called to be honest. Partly because I freelance too. I wonder who pays for your time.
The other things are just the unfairness of it really. That sometimes, prior evidence is deemed inadmissible. Even in this case- her ex husband strongly believed she had attempted to poison him in the past. It was serious enough for him to have been in a coma at one stage but- I think that information was inadmissible at the trial. Just the instruction not to read up on it too. Obviously, trial by media is a real thing. It wouldn't be right to be swayed by that. But surely- to make such a huge decision on someone's innocence or guilt, you'd want to hear all you could. About their background, character, prior convictions etc.
Plus- it's a sort of theatre in the court room. It deeply troubles me that cases that look so cut and dry- like the OJ case can be swayed entirely by clever, charismatic and entertaining defence councils. It does make you wonder about the amount of times they might be getting it wrong- both ways. With criminals walking free and innocent people being wrongly convicted.
I suppose it's the only way we can try and serve justice. Especially when people lie but still, it seems pretty scary really. Have there been cases where you could see it both ways? That they could either be innocent or guilty? I wish people were at least honest- once they'd been caught- to admit it. It must be agonozing for the families of victims.
