Huhne

[Nick Armstrong]

saying "what Maserati" doesn't fool anybody !:biggrin:
This Vienna website.

http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/v/vienna.aspx

you will need to take the afternoon off for this one.

These are scandalous digressions from the depressing events in the Huhne ménage, but notwithstanding that:

I'm digging:

The possible influence Scott Joplin may have had on Mahler while they both lived in New York 1907-1911 (reflected in a motive and harmonic progression very typical of a Joplin ragtime near the end of Mahler's 10th Symphony, and possibly also in the irregular meters of the 2nd movement of the same symphony).

:laugh: :cracker: :ale: :ale:

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I think the judge was unnecessarily rude to the jury when they asked for clarification.

I agee. They may have been a bit dim, but saying what he did may put other jurors off asking more relevant questions.

[Julien Sorel]

"The words are relatively straightforward English words which the law does not permit me to go beyond further than I have by way of clear illustration in these directions."

Mr Justice Sweeney doesn't come across as in harmony with the English language, does he? Perhaps his remarks have been poorly reported :smiley:.

7. Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?

"There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence. On the contrary, there is no burden on the defendant to prove anything at all."

He hasn't answered the question he was asked, has he?

"Was will overborne?" I dunno, was he? :biggrin:

[jean]

A jury cannot speculate. They can draw inferences from the evidence presented...

Drawing inferences is perilously close to speculation.

When the defence is one of marital coercion, I doubt if anyone could say unequivocally where the one ended and the other began.

[jean]

I've been on jury service and I found it to be an eye-opener that confirmed my faith in the process.

In both cases that I was involved with, the Judge gave a very clear summing up and made a very clear distinction about what we should and what we should not concern ourselves with. I was delightfully surprised and impressed. :ok:

I've done it twice, and I too was very impressed - but more at the quality of the jurors' deliberations than at anything the judge said.

In fact, in one case where the judge in his summing-up made it quite clear what verdict we were to return, we didn't, because we thought he was wrong.

[teamsaint]

I've done it twice, and I too was very impressed - but more at the quality of the jurors' deliberations than at anything the judge said.

In fact, in one case where the judge in his summing-up made it quite clear what verdict we were to return, we didn't, because we thought he was wrong.

I did jury service and it sure is a learning experience, in a whole lot of ways.. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be tried by the jury I was on !!:yikes:
(obviously there were a couple of sane ones......)

[jean]

I suspect the juror who phrased the questions may not be the same as those who initiated the questions, if you get my drift....The fact that one juror asked whether they could reach a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and had no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence is suggestive.

It looks very much as though a juror or jurors were trying to go beyond what was permissible, and wouldn't listen to
to whoever told them they couldn't, and whoever framed the question was looking for authority from the judge to get that juror or jurors back on track.

[Sir Velo]

It looks very much as though a juror or jurors were trying to go beyond what was permissible, and wouldn't listen to
to whoever told them they couldn't, and whoever framed the question was looking for authority from the judge to get that juror or jurors back on track.

I agree with you there Jean. :smiley:

In respect of the "marital coercion" argument, I suspect that the judiciary is going to need to provide more guidance in the future. It would be interesting to know what the examples the judge provided to the jury were, and whether any could be seen to be analogous to the Huhne case. My own view is that, except in cases where there is corroborative evidence of extreme coercion, this should not be seen as an extenuating defence, otherwise there is a risk that spouses will invoke it as a matter of course to cover for any illegal activity of their other halves.

[Mr Pee]

everybody on this board seems to have a flash motor. Even the cyclists.

Which reminds me, has Mr Pee seen that vienna website, do you think?

I have now, briefly.

Very dissapointed. I thought it was going to be about flash motors, not squeaky gates. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/sad/frus...y-emoticon.gif

[teamsaint]

I have now, briefly.

Very dissapointed. I thought it was going to be about flash motors, not squeaky gates. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/sad/frus...y-emoticon.gif

Lots about some quite interesting early bikes though.

(sorry if it disappointed though.:sadface:)

[Mr Pee]

Lots about some quite interesting early bikes though.

(sorry if it disappointed though.:sadface:)

Oh yes, sorry. I'm afraid I didn't scroll down far enough the first time. Actually quite an interesting read!

My apologies. I was put off by the first few paragraphs which made me think the whole thing was going to be about atonal rubbish.

[MrGongGong]

My apologies. I was put off by the first few paragraphs which made me think the whole thing was going to be about atonal rubbish.

:laugh::laugh:

I'm looking forward to this being published in the UK

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/boring-formless-nonsense-9781441122131/

[jean]

In respect of the "marital coercion" argument, I suspect that the judiciary is going to need to provide more guidance in the future. It would be interesting to know what the examples the judge provided to the jury were, and whether any could be seen to be analogous to the Huhne case.

There aren't very many examples he could have provided!

My own view is that, except in cases where there is corroborative evidence of extreme coercion, this should not be seen as an extenuating defence...

It is ridiculously out of date.

There's a history of it here.

During this trial, the prosecution asked the jury to

“look at who you are trying…Do you really think there’s any prospect of this woman having been reduced to such a quivering jelly that when she sent the form she thought she had no choices? Is she the quivering jelly kind? Or is she the kind of person to stand her ground to make her own choices? Yes she is.”

What was a responsible jury supposed to do with that?

[eighthobstruction]

It's a shame the jury did not have access to your link Jean....

[Flosshilde]

It would need witnesses who could describe what the relationship was like in the domestic environment (ie at home). Which would inevitably mean the children, or close family members. It would also involve a degree of speculation about her mental state at the time - something the judge said the jury should not do.

And it is entirely possible for someone to be very powerful & assertive in their professional life, but once they get home & the door is shut can become a different person.