Posts by Jan Farr
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
On one trial, a jury member could not be persuaded from making things up (what if...) rather than focussing on the evidence.
In another, a large retired british prison officer refused to believe the police would arrest anyone who wasn't guilty.
I was on two juries in one week (years ago) and we had intransigent, irrational people in each. Two of them in one trial refused to believe that anyone as beautiful and well-dressed as the defendant could possibly be guilty even though the evidence that she was, was overwhelming. After a frustrating few hours in that tiny airless room the rest of us decided to stand around the table with our backs to them and our faces an inch from the wall while the defendent's admirers sorted themselves out. With no-one to pay them attention they decided in two minutes to join the majority.
In the other. one woman believed that a Maori man couldn't possibly be innocent - even though he had clearly been stitched up quite incompetently by the police.
Overall, though, I was impressed with the abilities and common sense of the people who were randomly pulled into the system. I wonder how common that experience is because I've never been on another jury. -
I don't argue about people buying tickets - I'm just over the gasps of people like Kathryn Ryan, who seems to regard the win as one of the deeper and more meaningful human experiences.
-
Of course not. But my point is that you can excuse a person for letting their attention lapse momentarily. It was a three month trial. Who has the concentration and stamina to be always attentive?
Nobody mentioned slight lapses in concentration as far as I know - they were talking about sleeping, giggling and passing notes.
-
Lovely story Joe!
-
Firstly, it was a three-month trial. If I'd had to sit in the same chair for three months I'd have had a sleep too. In fact I'd have been in a coma by the end of it. No amount of smelling salts would revive me.
Are you serious?
-
I'm with you Jan Farr - my comment was directed to Christaan the Londoner
:)
-
One gets the feeling that Martin van Beynen would rather dispense with principle of reasonable doubt.
I got the feeling that he didn't feel the doubt was reasonable.
-
I know Tolley is an ignoramous with a penchant for the sauce, but she can't be serious... Can she??
I wonder who she gets her feedback from. Possibly not from South Auckland:
"But when it came to hobby courses, Ms Tolley said it was possible the services could still be provided if those taking the courses were prepared to pay more for them.
She said feedback she had received suggested people were willing to do so."
And isn't it possible that one person's hobby is another's employable skill?
-
Did anyone hear about the woman who received emails thanking her for signing the 'smacking' petition, when she hadn't done so?
-
I seem to remember that the proposed scheme wasn't that good.
And as I remember it considerably lowered the amount of the super payment as a percentage of the average wage.