Wednesday, 15 June 2005

Michael Jackson verdict

The Daily Show has an item [WMV] on the Michael Jackson trial.


  1. I didn't pay much attention to this as I was sure he was guilty. The American system seems really complicated. In some ways it seems very much to put a great onus on the prosecution. I was also very unsure about the number of jurors who were in this case. It looks like you need unanimous verdicts which I think would be very difficult in the Jackson case. I prefer majority decision or perhaps even "not proven". The Scottish system may have some advantages but are they getting rid of not proven? I've been on a couple of juries and the ones I was on were a bit mad. In one case a thug nearly got killed. It was clear to me that the girl who stabbed him was recklwess whether her attack would kill him - stabbed straight in the stomach. Her defence was that she was defending her boyfriend who was about to be attacked. Everyone but me and one other thought that since he deserved it (which he did) the girl should be let off. I think Jackson should have been in an orange jumpsuit - the rules don't apply there.

  2. Gerry you've probably just broken the law by discussing the voting on your jury (13-2 ?)

    After Wacko's verdict the Independent put forward the case for Jury members talking about the trial because they felt it would bring back some sort of trust in the system. I'm not sure it would.

    I was heading to Paisley Court a couple of months ago for Jury service. I was going down Moss Street and I saw this guy (about 20 years old) running down the road, obviously late, carrying two crutches.

    He got to the corner of St James Street and slowed to a limp, leaned on the crutches and hobbled across to the court.

    I was thinking "I hope you are the case I'm involved in". Easy decision - guilty. No need for any evidence ;-)

    I wonder if I should send this anecdote into the Sunday Post.