tommy sherridan

Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza

Re: tommy sherridan

Postby Dexter St. Clair » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:58 pm

Who cops it when the judge notices we're trying to influence the jury?
"I before E, except after C" works in most cases but there are exceptions.
User avatar
Dexter St. Clair
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 6252
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: tommy sherridan

Postby The Egg Man » Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:06 am

Dexter St. Clair wrote:Who cops it when the judge notices we're trying to influence the jury?



The jury will have been instructed not to read or listen to anything about this case in the media or cyberspace.
I hear the people sing.
The Egg Man
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:07 pm

Re: tommy sherridan

Postby aland » Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:04 pm

as the media have been full of basically how Tommy is guilty right from the start showing him a bit of support on here wont do any harm. I would love for him and Gail to get a not guilty on this as knowing the guy way back I dont think he is the type to go for shennanigans as described, fake tan yes but not what he is accused of

reckon because of all the media bullshit the best he can hope for is not proven
aland
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: tommy sherridan

Postby banjo » Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:11 pm

a wee change in the case today,in mr and mrs sheridans favour as well.
banjo
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 3350
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:26 pm

not proven

Postby north glasgow dave » Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:15 am

so technically it is very possible...if the jury cant decide..or are not unamimous.that the verdict could very well be not proven..
north glasgow dave
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:24 pm

Re: tommy sherridan

Postby Vinny the Mackem » Fri Nov 26, 2010 4:20 pm

The jury have to decide on two outcomes, conviction or aquittal. There are two ways acquittal can be acheived, not guilty or not proven, but fundamentally, the jury are only really looking at conviction or acquittal.

So 8 people or more need to decide whether the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt or not.

In terms of the not guilty/not proven, it could be a 4/4 split, it really doesn't matter, it would still be a majority in favour of an acquittal. The effect would be the same, with 7 for conviction, and 8 for acquittal. All the accused look for is for more people on the jury than not thinking the Crown cannot prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and it matters not a jot how the acquittal verdict is made up.
User avatar
Vinny the Mackem
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Glasgow

Re: tommy sherridan

Postby Dexter St. Clair » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:48 am

Vinny the Mackem wrote:The jury have to decide on two outcomes, conviction or aquittal. There are two ways acquittal can be acheived, not guilty or not proven, but fundamentally, the jury are only really looking at conviction or acquittal.

So 8 people or more need to decide whether the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt or not.

In terms of the not guilty/not proven, it could be a 4/4 split, it really doesn't matter, it would still be a majority in favour of an acquittal. The effect would be the same, with 7 for conviction, and 8 for acquittal. All the accused look for is for more people on the jury than not thinking the Crown cannot prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and it matters not a jot how the acquittal verdict is made up.



A good explanation and one that cannot be made too often.
In England if the jury fails to agree after a given period, at the discretion of the judge they may reach a verdict by a 10-2. In Scotland there has never been a requirement for verdicts to be unanimous; they are reached by simple majority. (People were occasionally hanged on majority verdicts in Scotland.) Juries may also return the verdict of not proven. The backing of only eight jurors is needed to return a guilty verdict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial
"I before E, except after C" works in most cases but there are exceptions.
User avatar
Dexter St. Clair
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 6252
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: tommy sherridan

Postby Socceroo » Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:57 am

Given the amount of witnesses that have rolled into court and said that Tommy Sheridan is lying, would lead most at the current point of the trial to believe that he probably did commit perjury.

However, why did all these witnesses, several whom have given evidence at both trials not state at the first trial that Tommy Sheridan was lying? Will those witnesses who have changed their evidence to the Court in the current perjury trial from the previous libel trial be charged with perjury also?

The amount of people stating that Tommy Sheridan told them in confidence that he had been to the swingers club seems to good to be true. I would think that most of them are robust witnesses, but there seems to be more than a few fantasists among the witnesses for the prosecution.

Will there be a clear cut verdict? Or will we after all these weeks see the Judge direct the Jury before they retire to reach a verdict?

One thing that is clear is that a lot of Tax payers money has been spent on the trial.
User avatar
Socceroo
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: Mount Flo, Glasgow

Re: tommy sherridan

Postby hazy » Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:47 pm

Here is a scenario. If some of the jurors hate the NOTW that much they , just out of spite return a not proven verdict. Laugh, I would pay my licence fee.
Thank you. And why not.
User avatar
hazy
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: city dweller

Re: tommy sherridan

Postby The Egg Man » Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:05 pm

hazy wrote:Here is a scenario. If some of the jurors hate the NOTW that much they , just out of spite return a not proven verdict. Laugh, I would pay my licence fee.



Some folks think that's how Tommy won the original case.
I hear the people sing.
The Egg Man
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:07 pm

Re: tommy sherridan

Postby Fat Cat » Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:07 pm

The Egg Man wrote:
hazy wrote:Here is a scenario. If some of the jurors hate the NOTW that much they , just out of spite return a not proven verdict. Laugh, I would pay my licence fee.



Some folks think that's how Tommy won the original case.


And to be honest, there's not a damn thing wrong with that ::):
User avatar
Fat Cat
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:09 pm
Location: Glasgow

Re: tommy sherridan

Postby scaryman2u » Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:53 pm

Fat Cat wrote:
The Egg Man wrote:
hazy wrote:Here is a scenario. If some of the jurors hate the NOTW that much they , just out of spite return a not proven verdict. Laugh, I would pay my licence fee.



Some folks think that's how Tommy won the original case.


And to be honest, there's not a damn thing wrong with that ::):


Except that he is guilty 100% !
User avatar
scaryman2u
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 959
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: GLASGOW

Re: tommy sherridan

Postby hazy » Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:01 am

s2u the last time I was on jury duty the crooks were guilty as sin but some of the jury had a soft spot for the two East End criminals and gave them a not guilty verdict just because they hated the police. Its about time for a change, how its done I dont have a clue .
Thank you. And why not.
User avatar
hazy
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: city dweller

Re: tommy sherridan

Postby The Egg Man » Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:26 am

scaryman2u wrote:
Fat Cat wrote:
The Egg Man wrote:
hazy wrote:Here is a scenario. If some of the jurors hate the NOTW that much they , just out of spite return a not proven verdict. Laugh, I would pay my licence fee.



Some folks think that's how Tommy won the original case.


And to be honest, there's not a damn thing wrong with that ::):


Except that he is guilty 100% !



I wish you'd mentioned that before we went to all the bother and expense of a trial. The judge could just have phoned Tommy and said 'scaryman2u says you're guilty so you're not getting the money and you're going to jail for perjury'.

It would all have been so much easier.
I hear the people sing.
The Egg Man
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:07 pm

Re: tommy sherridan

Postby BrigitDoon » Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:09 am

Yes, and it would have spared us all from being done for contempt of court.
UXB
BrigitDoon
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 4232
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:03 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Random Distractions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests