Quote from: Gwydion on 13 April 2024, 02:53:45 PM...... I can't but wonder if this isn't a tad patronising, believing non-professionals to be unable to grasp such elevated language.

Not sure about that.  You only have to look at any TV quiz show to realise that there is a significant proportion of the population who are as thick as the proverbial.   A few of them were on the same juries that I was.
 

QuoteWhen I did jury service, over 15 years ago now, the judge told us that we had to "be sure" before we could return our verdict, or words to that effect.  When we retired three barrack room lawyers on the jury embarked on a heated argument on what "being sure" meant and, presumably brought up on TV courtroom dramas, asked if "being sure" was the same as "beyond reasonable doubt".  Our foreman asked the question and we were told that "being sure" had replaced "beyond reasonable doubt" to avoid confusion in the minds of jurors, and because the term "beyond reasonable doubt" implied that a degree of doubt still remained.  Anyway, in the case of OJ, I ran out of s***s to give many years ago but in a common sense context, I have no confusion where the meaning of "cleared" and "acquitted" is concerned.

Based on my own experience of being a juror on a murder trial back in 2009 I completely agree with John on this one with the added proviso that it appeared to me at least that some of my fellow jurors simply did not want to take responsibility for finding someone 'guilty of murder'.
Despite clear instructions from the judge about basing our decision only on the evidence presented in court, precise and clear testimony from several 'expert witnesses' several of the juror's persisted in bringing up "what if's" and "maybes" not based on anything that was said during the trial. In this case I am sure that the family of the deceased did not get the justice they deserved and the defendant did indeed get away with murder.
My experience at the time left me quite depressed about the 'system'.

Paul

It's a known problem with humans, they tend to think the best of people. It does make the fighters dangerous; it's not so much they are necessarily "technically good" at fighting,  for some of them they just don't have the normal filters that make them stop and think first. They punch first, punch second, and possibly think later. And that can just be to justify the punches.

Quote from: T13A on 14 April 2024, 07:16:57 AM.........My experience at the time left me quite depressed about the 'system'.
Paul

I empathise.  I sat on three juries over a two week period.  On one, a fellow juror refused to convict on the grounds that he disagreed with the British legal system and would never convict anybody brought before it.  He shouldn't have been doing jury duty with that attitude.  Fortunately the judge accepted an 11:1 verdict and justice was done. 

Quote from: John Cook on 14 April 2024, 09:30:08 AMOn one, a fellow juror refused to convict on the grounds that he disagreed with the British legal system and would never convict anybody brought before it.   

I believe if you state the above when called for jury service, they will dismiss you. Years ago a colleague at work was called and said as much so that he was dismissed as attending was going to cost him a fortune financially.

QuoteBased on my own experience of being a juror on a murder trial back in 2009 I completely agree with John on this one with the added proviso that it appeared to me at least that some of my fellow jurors simply did not want to take responsibility for finding someone 'guilty of murder'.
Despite clear instructions from the judge about basing our decision only on the evidence presented in court, precise and clear testimony from several 'expert witnesses' several of the juror's persisted in bringing up "what if's" and "maybes" not based on anything that was said during the trial. In this case I am sure that the family of the deceased did not get the justice they deserved and the defendant did indeed get away with murder.
My experience at the time left me quite depressed about the 'system'.

Paul

Yes, my experience about ten years earlier was similarly depressing, although that case was only of assault.  The unwillingness of some jurors to take responsibility, which they had irrespective of an innocent or guilty verdict, was most depressing.  I consoled myself with the argument that the innocent verdict was because the prosecution had failed to convince the jury, although it seemed to me to be a clear case that should have taken two minutes to resolve as guilty.   Talking with a senior policeman friend afterwards, he confirmed that for most people their exposure to the system runs along the lines of: My experience at the time left me quite depressed about the 'system'.  However, what alternative is there as a safeguard against state sponsored repression?

I agree its not an ideal solution, but probably better than most of the alternatives. Fortunately I have got to nearly 60 and have not been called - yet.

My dread is to be put on dome dreary financial case that goes on for weeks.

I loved my Jury Service (c.18 months ago) - I leant more about phone-mast triangulation, burner-phones, how high a chap could jump out of a multi-story car park without serious injury (its higher than you think) and how to run a county-lines drug dealing network, than I'd ever have leant from the TV    Most educational.

Sadly it got cancelled partway through as the forensic team had not checked to see if the defendants phone (the one that the whole case rested on) actually worked ... I rest my case milud     

Shame really as I was just getting into the swing of it.
Hey Ho

DEreck Underwood, iconic spin bowler

My jury service was a bit of a damp squib unfortunately.  I spent 4 days sat in a room without getting a case, then got called in for jury selection on the Friday but wasn't chosen, then they told me to just go home and I was done.  All I got out of it was a parking ticket!

DEreck Underwood, iconic spin bowler

"Deadly" Derek, another sporting hero of my yoof... I can remember commentators whenever the players came off due to a brief shower saying how the conditions would soon be ideal for Underwood - and how often he proved them right!

I was quite young when Underwood was playing for England.

His bowling action was confusing to a budding bowler.
Often faster than some "medium pacers".
As far as I can tell, he speared in  flat quick deliveries aimed at the batsman's off stump.

Television wasn't good enough to detect subtleties of spin at the time.
I assume with his quicker pace he dealt in what we generally call "cutters".

What is beyond debate is his effective partnership with wicket keeper Alan Knott for Kent and England.
Perhaps it was Knott's agility that unlocked Underwood's faster deliveries.

A truly great bowler from my youth. Once saw him up close bowling in the nets at Lords. I was amazed how quickly he bowled - he would have qualified as a quick in my sort of cricket.

Paul Auster

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/may/01/paul-auster-dies-aged-77-death-american-author-new-york-trilogy

Duane Eddy (86). King of the "twangy" guitar instrumental in the late 50's/early 60's.