jane2452
89 Posts
Member Since
16/04/2009 02:42:47
POST DATE
18/05/2009 18:09:33 |
I have decided to start this new thread along side the what is right with the justice system one to see what it is that is wrong with the system-afterall we need to know what the problems are before we can tackle them
I would like to start with not all information being made available to a jury. I have asked the site a question about this but what ever the answer it is still wrong
|
|
Live and let live
|
Justice 4 Brendan
Member's Home Page
184 Posts
Member Since
20/04/2009 14:31:53
POST DATE
18/05/2009 19:20:58 |
I think a Jury have a hard job they have a person's life in their hands but also must be seen to do the right thing, i think it is a very hard thing they do.
and they are only human.
Not put to the jury, in the murder of Margaret Irvine.
"In Brendan's own words"
Witnesses not called and evidence to be challenged. Acquaintances of mine. Neither precognised or cited. Essentially my previous legal team decided that their testomony they might have to offer was not important. I on the other hand believed and still believe, that their evidence as too my whereabouts and demeanour on Sunday 28th September 2003 would flatley contradict the evidence as to my behaviour on that morning offered in court by witness E S. When i ( Kevin Donald) last spoke to these people they told me they would be happy to speak to my legal representatives.
Evidence to be challenged.. OA. Omitted an important fact.that 2 police officers called at the house that morning 28th September 2003. She stated that i remained in her house until after 5pm on that Sunday. Yet i was watching with E from the Green bridge, whilst the police were indoors with O. Neither O or E mentioned the police presence when interviewed or during the course of their evidence. The police where in the house when i was supposedly in the house. I returned to the house after the police had departed.Shortly thereafter E's Mother and i left leaving O and E to resolve the difficulty. ( It was stated in court that i never left the house that morning and that no one else visited them that morning or afternoon, when infact there were a number of visitors that called including a midwife and both Mothers.) Their evidence against my interests was not strictly accurate--
L An alcoholic with very many problems. L alleged that in the course of a conversation with others and me in a friends house i claimed to have been involved in the murder of Mrs Irvine. However there were participants in that conversation who can confirm that i made no such claims. These include DM and his wife S, and a couple of their friends including Tc. The police interviewed DM and S likewise my legal representatives interviewed them. DM and S were cited but not called to give evidence. I do not know the reason why they were not called and questioned.
In Crosshouse hospital.
GT. Another patient, one with many problems of her own Gt gave evidence to the affect that i had confessed to a murder not specific in nature where someone was stabbed 17 times. Her evidence against me, though uncorroborated because untrue, was crucial to the crown case. I say that this Woman's testimony was a consequence of her condition and that the attention on her, the feeling of being useful and important, caused her to seek attention by fabricating a story against me. I believe that GT was ill, not necessarily vindictive, but manipulated by the crown for there own ends: as opposed to the ends of justice. This is just some of the evidence to be challenged there is more. ( NAMES BEEN PROTECTED)
This is just the tip of the iceberg in this case, but i bet there are a few more cases like it.
"This is only some of the evidence the Jury never heard"
Very good start to the thread on the system Jane, well done.
A good way to start highlighting the wrongs in the system.
edited by Justice 4 Brendan on 18/05/2009
|
|
"I hear much of people calling to punish the guilty, but few are concerned to clear the innocent" Daniel Defoe 1661-1731
|
admin
Member's Home Page
449 Posts
Member Since
08/04/2009 08:00:00
POST DATE
18/05/2009 19:32:08 |
Quite right, they do have a very difficult job to do. One which is made all the more difficult by inclusion of evidence which shouldn't be and the exclusion of evidence which should. I published an article the other day which in some respects highlighted how difficult this area was to address How revealing the truth about a witness could leave you wrongly convicted.
Sometimes even the truth works against you in the eyes of the jury, understandable from their perspective, but very difficult to address.
|
|
|
black
43 Posts
Member Since
16/04/2009 02:30:32
POST DATE
18/05/2009 20:58:59 |
As far as i can tell so far pretty much everything that i have encountered is wrong with the justice system! From the initial investigation right through to a possible trial, conviction or release. Sandra Lean's book highlights a lot of reaccuring points that the justice system fails on, i highly recommend this book as its an eye opener but proves wrongly accused people are far more common than should be!
Jurer's not given all information, or given misleading irrellivant information, i certainly would not like to be chosen to do what they have to do, as justice4brendon says a person's life in their hands and also to be seen to be doing the right thing very very difficult, poses a question is a jury a reliable way to come up with a verdict, each and everyone of us has opinions could we all say that in their shoes we would not be swayed one way or another because of them?
|
|
All good things come to those that wait!
|
admin
Member's Home Page
449 Posts
Member Since
08/04/2009 08:00:00
POST DATE
18/05/2009 22:30:48 |
Hi Black,
Another good post on the subject and one which laterally raises a difficult question. Clearly, the jury do have a difficult job which has been expressed very well by you both, also they have no legal training so are unfamiliar with the common tactics used to manipulate evidence either before or during it's presentation in court. However with regard to the question you have raised as to whether or not it is the best way to decide a persons fate, I would like to respond perhaps what is a substantially more difficult question to answer. Can you in any way think of an alternative which would create a better situation?
This is something I have considered at length and reports have been produced which I will source again should anyone wish to consider the matter further. However basically options are very limited and in my opinion would in no way serve to improve the prospects of a fair trial.
One option would be to have a panel consisting of an odd number of judges, however I really don't feel that this is an appropriate role for judges to perform and would only give rise to further confusion, their role rightly should remain as is, to preside over the hearing and ensure that the trial is conducted in accordance with the law. To regulate the admission of evidence (which I will discuss further later in my suggested improvement) and ultimately be held accountable for the proceedings which result in the verdict should an appeal be accepted later. Clearly there are also differences between Judges/sheriff's performances, they after all too are human, the one which presided over my case (where is judge dread anyway) was easy to understand, constantly reminded the jury to keep an open mind and to consider that even small details could be extremely important and seemed to consider everything very carefully, nothing more so than the motion submitted at the close of prosecution 'No case to answer on all counts.'. In fact I think that after the considerable amount of time it took him to decide whether or not it should continue, when he returned the following day with his ruling that he 'wasn't sufficiently convinced' of no case to answer, the only fair option was to indeed leave the matter for the jury to decide. This is in fact one area in which a jury is confused, any matter of law which arises sees them in some ways rightly removed so that the matter can be considered but they return knowing only that something was discussed probably confused as to what impact the matter has in the bigger picture. Surely some form of brief summary would be possible to keep things clear in their already spinning minds.
Another suggested alternative is a larger regular panel with some degree of training but in reports I have read on this alternative have although comparing it to a magistrates court in some respects criticized the spectrum of the panel in comparison with the broader available source from the general public of the accused's piers. These too are open to outside influences since they are a regular group of people and in all likelihood would in fact only serve to increase the frequency of miscarriages of justice rather than decrease it. After all, if an 'expert witness' can be influenced by subjective input with no relevance to their training, so to could a trained panel which would effectively be seen as professional jurors.
No, I think hard though it is for any jury member their role is both vital and the only realistic option available to the justice system. Having said that I do strongly feel that there are many areas which could and should be addressed to make their critical role a safer method of providing justice.
- For example, expert witnesses should have their reports more heavily regulated to ensure that they consist of only information gained from their own testing and hence their own field of 'expertise'. Any report which has been influenced by any other factor than that of a scientific one (which I assure you can and does happen when they are introduced to the "evidence" but will leave you to draw your own conclusions as to where from), if this is not the case it should be dismissed rather than censored which only leaves the jury questioning what they have not been permitted to see. The questions they are permitted to answer in courts should be limited to those which would assist the jury's understanding of their report which ultimately should be the sole input they have, how the findings of the report are assessed and correlated with other presented evidence is a matter for the jury alone to decide.
- Witnesses who cannot provide anything more substantial that circumstancial evidence should not be permitted with the exceptional cases which should be decided out with the jury's knowledge at a prior diet, which would reduce the jury being confused by a bombardment of useless information that in reality proves absolutely nothing and also would reduce the number of cases which reach courts based on circumstantial evidence alone.
- Once a person has been charged with an offence, any subsequent charges resulting from an ongoing investigation should in all cases be heard separately following the close of trial, this would prevent the jury from being manipulated by the frequently used tactic of character assassination and in turn reduce the time wasted by police determined to find dirt which doesn't exist. This certainly happens usually at a time close to the beginning of trial, and in may own case a motion to separate charges heard the prosecution's own admission that the additional charge would if on it's own never see a court, but that it was vital in relation to the initial charges to present specific character (a grotesque one) to the jury, one which could not be shown without this tactic simply because it doesn't exist.
These are just a few obviously but by further control of what is and isn't presented to a jury, and the investigation which leads to trial I still believe that they are still and always will be the best option, particularly when the public learn to accept that all is not as it seems with the balance of scales.
I apologize for the length of post but it is a very important area of discussion in the interests of future cases.
Excellent thread so far, well done!
|
|
|
admin
Member's Home Page
449 Posts
Member Since
08/04/2009 08:00:00
POST DATE
18/05/2009 22:31:58 |
P.S. Can I class that as an article and consider it part of my challenge?
|
|
|
black
43 Posts
Member Since
16/04/2009 02:30:32
POST DATE
19/05/2009 06:34:51 |
Hi Billy, good reply and you may consider it as part of your challenge i will look forward to reading it .
|
|
All good things come to those that wait!
|
jane2452
89 Posts
Member Since
16/04/2009 02:42:47
POST DATE
19/05/2009 10:02:32 |
Well doesn't the article Billy has made us aware of just prove my point!
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1797675.0.0.php
So can anyone tell me why the jury often doesn't get all the information? Why aren't all witnesses used-even when they've been summonsed and I also wondered does the judge know all the witnesses that could be used and for why or does he merely know what is being told in the court? also i'd like to say the points that justice4brendan have raised re brendans case and the lack of vital witnesses used is appauling-it's all so very hard for you and hope this site helps some.
Billy-Think you should write an article on the jury issue but wonder if you maybe already just did lol.
|
|
Live and let live
|
Billysis
Member's Home Page
25 Posts
Member Since
28/04/2009 14:23:53
POST DATE
19/05/2009 10:23:42 |
Great thread Jane
I think there are many many things wrong with the system-to name a few
1- I believe police are promoted as rewards if you like for charges served, this much play a major influence in wrongful prosecutions
2-People who have known previous records and predudices towards a persons-their word be used on it's merit, and other respectable people's take on things be ignored. so again I suppose this would be not all information being used.
3-A person can be charged with no eye witness, no evidence and a reliable story
Think I'll stop there my blood pressure is rising.
|
|
|
bigsis
Member's Home Page
52 Posts
Member Since
29/04/2009 21:18:57
POST DATE
19/05/2009 11:01:27 |
What a great topic. Unfortunately i have to say though i too believe that the system is wrong right from the very beginning, hearsay is taken as Gospel, things not noted or followed up, evidence ignored right from the onset and never to be seen again. So many lives are ruined because of a justice system that is flawed right from the very word go.
I too wouldn't like to be a juror they are human and have a terrible task ahead and believe that the selecting of jurors could be reviewed also, look forward to reading your article following Black's challenge.
Keep up the good work bro
|
|
All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
|
|
UNIQUE VISITORS
FEATURED BOOK: Sandra Lean's 'No smoke, The Shocking Truth About The British Justice System'(To see all 15 5-star reveiws check 'No Smoke' as well as the full title, it is listed under both.)
|
