No verdict today. I'm a little surprised by that for reasons I've set out before. I think the trial has been constructed so that a Jury might well swim in speculation rather than facts. I note the Judge gave the required warnings not to pay attention to some evidence other than in a certain way, also to not extrapolate from certain evidence other possibilities. In my opinion a very confusing area for a Jury whom are told they're there as a cross-section of society to bring their experiences in order to judge one of their own kind. I think that all gets jumbled when a Jury are asked to ignore things, put things from their minds, not to use their life experience in reaching a reasonable conclusion but rather in some aspects simply shut things out.
I don't like it and I can hear those that say so what? I could say simply say experience, but I've read boards and public opinion sites in the last few weeks on this subject and there are not a few that voice their opinions based on the arson and so forth. To me that's a clear demonstration in what needed to be avoided in this trial, for the sake of the accused and for the sake of the families. My experience tells me that every effort in the world was made to have Callum Boe reveal some 'inner' details of the earlier crimes, the way EM acted and what he said - a whole speculative discourse to compare crimes of no violence other than to inanimate objects with another in which a man was killed on his own driveway. I believe the Jury needed not to look at things they would be told later to consider in another way than that which they might have first considered. I believe they needed incriminating facts analysed from that morning, not look elsewhere when there were none to be found.
The prosecutor warned the Jury not to look too closely at the evidence (or imo the lack of it) but use common sense, why possibly wouldn't a Juror accept that as an indication that the prosecutor 'knew' something that wasn't contained in the evidence that might be encompassed in the evidence the Judge would instruct them to ignore, and so it goes on. I repeat what I have said earlier if the Crown didn't have the evidence, and I still believe they don't, why proceed with the charges. Particularly in a manner so fraught with danger for the accused. As a country we need to have a broader belief in freedom and not in the anxiety to solve a crime, that might never be solved, or indeed be in danger of being 'solved' by a Miscarriage of Justice.
Names settle in the darkness tonight, like those of Arthur Thomas, Louise Nicholas and the baby Azaria where pictures were painted, primary evidence hidden, or produced from thin air. So tonight many close to this case will traverse a tightrope of emotions, most likely all not knowing the truth though some imagining for reasons of their own, and others told what it was - told in a way not supported by evidence. That's Justice fragile as it might be at times, and something to be learnt from and improved upon
I wonder how the prosecution thinks a person on a bicycle can get away with 3 puppies? Would the puppies not have made any noise when taken away. If they were killed on site, then why did no one hear any commotion from the dogs or Katie? It is assumed that the farm shotgun was used but does Ewen not have hunting guns? Has anyone checked if Ewen rented any cars during that period?
ReplyDelete