Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

[Drew]

A juror will come to a decision after hearing (and based on) what's presented on Court by both sides, all very well to reassess after the fact.....innit?

There's no questioning the Jury in this case Mark. All question marks should be directed to police and prosecution.

Perhaps not all, the defense must have been pretty stupid not to question the validity of the prosecutions expert's opinions.

[Katman]

A juror will come to a decision after hearing (and based on) what's presented on Court by both sides, all very well to reassess after the fact.....innit?

Even the people trying to clear Mark Lundy's name are not criticising the jury.

It is the integrity of the police investigation that is being questioned.

[Maha]

There's no questioning the Jury in this case Mark. All question marks should be directed to police and prosecution.

Perhaps not all, the defense must have been pretty stupid not to question the validity of the prosecutions expert's opinions.

Earlier I posted ''Yip, been on a jury before today, defendant was on a charge of 'supply a class b drug' he was caught with small snap lock bags/a small scale/ a briefcase full of cash/brown wage envelopes and we the jury found him not guilty of supply because the prosecution could not cast reasonable doubt. Oh he was guilty alright, but it could not be proven. He had already been found guilty of possession by a previous jury.''

Just to add to that, at our first recess a jury foreman was elected, his first question, to the rest of us was '' a show of hands please, guilty or not guilty. It were nine that were leaning on the guilty?
By the end of the hearing, it was unanimous. not guilty. Both police failed and the subsequently, the prosecution had little to work with.

Interest though, he was a sidecar racer

[Maha]

Even the people trying to clear Mark Lundy's name are not criticising the jury.

It is the integrity of the police investigation that is being questioned.

So the jury got it right? based on the slack police work? thanks for pointing that out.

[Drew]

Interest though, he was a sidecar racer

I fucken knew Scrivy wasa drug dealer! His house is too nice, for how big a devo he is!

[Maha]

I fucken knew Scrivy wasa drug dealer! His house is too nice, for how big a devo he is!

Is Scrivy a big ugly bugger with a shaved head and ginga ZZ Top type beard?

[Drew]

Is Scrivy a big ugly bugger with a shaved head and ginga ZZ Top type beard?

He is not. But I'm not gonna let a little thing like that stop me from spreading rumors.

[Katman]

So the jury got it right? based on the slack police work? thanks for pointing that out.

I wouldn't say "got it right" Mark.

They gave the verdict that almost anyone would be expected to give - given the heavily biased and seemingly deceptive evidence presented to them by the police and the prosecution.

It seriously makes one wonder just how safe our liberty is these days.

[Katman]

Earlier I posted ''Yip, been on a jury before today, defendant was on a charge of 'supply a class b drug' he was caught with small snap lock bags/a small scale/ a briefcase full of cash/brown wage envelopes and we the jury found him not guilty of supply because the prosecution could not cast reasonable doubt. Oh he was guilty alright, but it could not be proven. He had already been found guilty of possession by a previous jury.''

Just to add to that, at our first recess a jury foreman was elected, his first question, to the rest of us was '' a show of hands please, guilty or not guilty. It were nine that were leaning on the guilty?
By the end of the hearing, it was unanimous. not guilty. Both police failed and the subsequently, the prosecution had little to work with.

Interest though, he was a sidecar racer

Did he have any quantity of drugs on him - along with the snap lock bags, scales and cash?

[Drew]

Did he have any quantity of drugs on him - along with the snap lock bags, scales and cash?

Are you wondering where Scrivy fucked off to with your gear?

[Katman]

Are you wondering where Scrivy fucked off to with your gear?

He'll be back.

[Swoop]

Just to add to that, at our first recess a jury foreman was elected, his first question, to the rest of us was '' a show of hands please, guilty or not guilty.

Most bizarre. The foreman is elected at the beginning of a trial, prior to the trial getting underway. The presiding judge instructs the jury to go and elect a forman before the case commencing. For that person to ask for a vote of G/NG at that stage is pure lunacy.

[Maha]

Did he have any quantity of drugs on him - along with the snap lock bags, scales and cash?

Yes, as I pointed out in the post, ''He had already been found guilty of possession by a previous jury.'' they (the previous jury) couldn't decide on the supply charge.

[Maha]

Most bizarre. The foreman is elected at the beginning of a trial, prior to the trial getting underway. The presiding judge instructs the jury to go and elect a forman before the case commencing. For that person to ask for a vote of G/NG at that stage is pure lunacy.

You are correct, we were selected, then given an outline of the charges etc and how the court session will go, then asked to go an elect a jury forman..
It may have been at the first recess that the question was asked, interesting though, I remember an older Maori lady saying ''As far as I am concerned, if he has anything to do with drugs, he is guilty''.

[Katman]

Yes, as I pointed out in the post, ''He had already been found guilty of possession by a previous jury.'' they (the previous jury) couldn't decide on the supply charge.

So he had a quantity of drugs on him, along with snap lock bags, scales and a briefcase of money, and you found him not guilty of supply?

Must have been a phenomenal defense team - or a retarded prosecution.