Huntley and Carr trial

[curly]

I don't know if anyone feels the same as I do but it has had me absolutely dumfounded. How on earth, with the weight and gravity of the forensic evidence, did one of the jurors (unknown male or female) keep the other 11 debating the issues for four days?
I was expecting the jury to return a unanimous decision by Friday afternoon last week! It was originally envisaged that the trial might last 3 1/2 months, but the prosecution deliberately reduced the amount of witnesses called in order to rely heavily on the forensic evidence. Similarly, the defence only put Huntley and Carr into the witness box.
I could not imagine how 12 reasonable jurors could not agree on a verdict in quick time, however, one juror persistently argued that neither was guilty of the charges laid against them!!
Was this person sleeping through the trial?
Eventually the judge recalled the jury and instructed them to return a majority decision (11-1). The other 11 obviously tried to persuade the remaining one of the guilt of both parties but to no avail! It still took another three hours before they reached a decision.
I find it worrying in the least that this one person appears to be as weird, twisted, and "flakey" as Huntley himself .

[hotrodngaz]

I hate to say this Curly, but welcome to the real world. I am in my late thirties and have seen a vast change in people’s attitudes even in the last ten years. As you may know I was attacked by a 13 year old who swung a punch & kicked me last year and I couldn’t do a thing about it as I had held him to defend myself. We wouldn’t have even looked at an adult in the wrong way when we were that age, in-case they “cracked” you one. Unfortunately the kids of today know you can’t lay a finger on them, as you may be prosecuted. These kids grow up, and believe it or not, if they don’t get a criminal record, they can become jurors or even worse someone like Huntley.

[curly]

It narks me enormously mate, because this country has one of the oldest legal systems in the world, with the right to a fair trial by your peers at it's cornerstone. If people cannot take those responsibilities seriously and cannot participate willingly in a trial, then perhaps the jury vetting system isn't strong enough. It should certainly be strong enough to prevent the types that you refer to from sitting on a jury.
However, the Soham trial has shown a lot of "vetting" and information systems to be at fault.
But in fairness, any reasonable man or woman should not have failed to pass guilty verdicts on the evidence presented!!

[sherri]

I am not so sure that a system that relies on a jury is such a great system. My sister in law was on one once. Not a murder trial but one that involved money. She drove past the house of one of the people in the trial, for heaven's sakes, to see how well off they were and if they needed a settlement. I mean, what relevance has that to if they are guilty/ not guilty??
That is the type of person you get on juries. I would rather see panels of people versed in law, panels that change so they haven't all the same people on them all the time.
From what i have read of the case, the man has admitted doing the crime, after the forensic evidence pointed to him.

Sounds like you had one jury member there that had made up his or her mind and little things like evidence were not going to get in the way of an emotional decision.
That said, if I were on a jury, I would be very careful to try to analyse the worth of 'forensic evidence' alone. Years ago there was a murder trial here and the woman was accused of killing her baby(no body was ever found). The times just did not fit, it was hard to see how or when she could have done it, but forensic evidence seemed to be conclusive. The "experts" said they found sprays of foetal blood under the dash of the car. So she got sentenced to hard labour for life. Years later, it turned out the forensic evidence was faulty and new tests showed it was glue or varnish under the dashboard.

[JonnyRandom]

curly proving something "beyond ALL reasonable doubt" (the test for criminal negligence) is very hard, and its difficult for us to know how much juries really understand of the trial. there did not really seem a motive for the killings as there was no forensic evidence of rape, and huntley's past was not understood. also much information we would have seen in the papers would have been kept away from the jury. to this day we will never know what went on in that house.
i never thought he was guilty as he seemed so normal, it was only really when the football shirts appeared that the worm turned.

[JonnyRandom]

curly, proving something "beyond all reasonable doubt" (the test for criminal negligence) is hard. the jury would not have seen the information in the papers about huntley, nor would they have known about any past offences, which are irrelevent to the trial. until we were told about his sexual past, there seemed no motive for the killings of the two girls as there is no evidence they were interfered with.
huntley has never actually being convicted in the past, due to lack of evidence or lack of cooperation from the victims. and there appears no solid evidence of sexual motives in this case either, it seems to be plain murder. therefore when huntley is finally released, he will not be on the child s*x offenders register. does this strike anyone as odd to think that?

[RandomGoth]

i know this is only vaugly relevant but does anyone else find it scary that there are people like huntly out there cos i certainly do.
yours in randomness!
RG

[JonnyRandom]

yes, its a really nasty thought that there will be child s*x offenders almost in every city, town or village in the country. but on a more uplifting note dont believe all the hysteria about children not being safe on the street anymore, in fact the number of child related s*x offences have actually been going down for many many years.

[annie]

Over here in the States, they have to let a community know when a s*x offender takes up residency, he has to go on a weekly basis to a probation officer, if he doesn't turn up the community is informed, policing themselves.

And also it is extremely scary the way things have turned over here, I for one will not be living in the states in my dotage, the kids are arrogant, bad mouthed and bad mannered, we are creating a society I don't want me to be in - gimme a little cave in the highlands of Scotland and a room heater and I will be ok

[JonnyRandom]

annie, isnt that law named after a little girl who was murdered? its called "megans law" so all the neighbours know when a pervert moves nearby. f**k the p*edophiles rights, i think sarah paynes parents thought they should introduce it here, i think theyre right.

[annie]

YES IT IS jOHNNY

The bloody patients have taken over the asylum, and the doo gooders need flogging to death

Keep the faith in humanity - its all we have

[JonnyRandom]

thats right annie, but beaucracy and stupidity always take over

[curly]

I still maintain that there was sufficient evidence provided for any REASONABLE person to decide guilt BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Lets face it, the mobile phone records prove that Carr was in Grimsby at the time of the murders. The very time that she claimed she was in the bath at home in Soham. Yet some juror STILL decided that she was NOT GUILTY of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice!!
Some juror STILL decided that Huntley unfortunately killed two ten year old girls by ACCIDENT, and without intent!!
Come on!.......that juror needs to be examined as closely as Huntley himself!

[annie]

Curly I totally agree with you - we need to get them to hand the reins over to normal every day people

Jimmy whiss for president (get rid of the Royal Family too except Wills and Harry)

[average len]

Annie:

It's funny you say about the USA * the kids are arrogant, bad mouthed and bad mannered, we are creating a society I don't want me to be in* cos that's what everyone is saying over here about the UK. Maybe the slide into slobbiness and foul-mouthed aggression is universal.

[JonnyRandom]

*especially wills and harry*

[annie]

The general consensus is that the law is AGAINST the parents and its all going to hell in a handbag, I used to bray the crap out of my two and they turned into good looking partying men with JOBS no BABIES and their own homes, over here the kids never leave home, and they doss off the parents, then get their girlfriends pregnant or vice versa andf move the significant other in, it gets like a Mexicando STUFFED to the gills with people to thinks thats ok, then the circle goes on with the kids.

I mean I see people here in Wal-Mart neogiating with a 4 year old - I mean come the hell on - what they need is a damned good thrashing and stop being spoiled from parents scared of their children - whew nuff said

I have seen things that would make your hair curl, and the police go driving by to Dunken Donuts.

[sherri]

If you really want to see how some kids are in complete control of their parents, then become a teacher. Fair dinkum, we sometimes get parents of 5 year olds up in arms because their child can't always have his or her way. It will be ,like, why did you make her finish her work or wear her hat or whatever-she didn't feel like doing that and you are cruel to have insisted. I have found the more flexible we make the boundaries, the more they push it. For instance, at my school the kids can drink water or eat fruit or vegetables as they are working at the table (it is about learning styles, keeping hydrated etc). But not eat lollies etc .Some parents are now outraged that they cannot have soft drinks and cake.

To be fair though-most kids are okay, most adults are okay. Every generation thinks the one following it has deteriorated no end.
There are idiots and murderers in every generation. The trouble is when idiots get on juries. Do away with juries, I say.There has to be a better system.

[curly]

i kind of like the Northern Irish system of a Judge and three magistrates, at least they all have some training in the law1

[JonnyRandom]

juries in the law is party so the people see that they have theyre part in the law. ive just come back from a party with my ex work mates and one of my best mates, chris is p*ssed off. one of his associates (paul, 33) came onto a lad whos only 16 years old n he wants me to make a statement. its all really dodgy but when weve sobered up 2morrow well see whats gonna happpen...