Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[ajross]

For all of my criticism the wilkes book is very easy to read and if I did have a young son and a house I'm continually being told to decorate I could have read it a lot quicker

[ajross]

A silly question, is it allowed for a judge to take sides when summing up?

[Bridget]

A silly question, is it allowed for a judge to take sides when summing up?

I think the summing up is supposed to reflect the relative strengths in each sides case.

[Jane]

A silly question, is it allowed for a judge to take sides when summing up?

.......so maybe a silly answer. Would it not difficult to keep bias out of his voice, and would the jury not be able to hear the meaning behind what he says? Whether or not they choose to go down the road to which he's pointing them is up to them.

[Bridget]

.......so maybe a silly answer. Would it not difficult to keep bias out of his voice, and would the jury not be able to hear the meaning behind what he says? Whether or not they choose to go down the road to which he's pointing them is up to them.

I don't think that's a silly answer at all, it's very valid. There's more about this subject here:

http://nicmadge.co.uk/index.php?pr=summing_up_article_2

[Jane]

Bridget, thanks for that link, it was fascinating. Just goes to show that however hard we may try, nothing, when it involves human judgement, is ever 100% fail safe.

[Bridget]

Bridget, thanks for that link, it was fascinating. Just goes to show that however hard we may try, nothing, when it involves human judgement, is ever 100% fail safe.

Did you read part 1 as well? I only linked to the second part because that was more relevent to the point you were making but when you read the whole thing it's quite an eyeopener to the potential failings. Part 1 is here if you didn't see it:

http://nicmadge.co.uk/index.php?pr=summing_up_article

[Jane]

Did you read part 1 as well? I only linked to the second part because that was more relevent to the point you were making but when you read the whole thing it's quite an eyeopener to the potential failings. Part 1 is here if you didn't see it:

http://nicmadge.co.uk/index.php?pr=summing_up_article

OMG, when you look at all the variables, it really seems like it's the luck of the draw, doesn't it? Even so, whilst not being perfect, it may be better than the best of the rest, all the same, I think I'll try to stay out of courts.

[ajross]

Well, if Wilkes has quoted him correctly there are a few sentences with just the simple omission of one word he could have been impartial while still passing on a summary of the evidence. He really seems to have led the jury and passed over his own judgements, he also contradicts himself which can't be good

[Bridget]

Well, if Wilkes has quoted him correctly there are a few sentences with just the simple omission of one word he could have been impartial while still passing on a summary of the evidence. He really seems to have led the jury and passed over his own judgements, he also contradicts himself which can't be good

Is there a complete transcript of the JSU in Wilkes book? It's over 100 pages long and unless you read the whole thing it's impossible to comment effectively.

[ajross]

Is there a complete transcript of the JSU in Wilkes book? It's over 100 pages long and unless you read the whole thing it's impossible to comment effectively.

No, which makes me question if Wilkes chose certain statements as it supports his arguement and the drama of his book but the book alone would give you a very unbalanced view of things and you could easily 'blame' the judge,

[mertol22]

No, which makes me question if Wilkes chose certain statements as it supports his arguement and the drama of his book but the book alone would give you a very unbalanced view of things and you could easily 'blame' the judge,

I do blame the judge he should have been replaced a poor judge .

[lookout]

No, which makes me question if Wilkes chose certain statements as it supports his arguement and the drama of his book but the book alone would give you a very unbalanced view of things and you could easily 'blame' the judge,

The jury in Jeremy's case,were " persuaded " by the judge who instructed them that the silencer " on its own " could lead them to believe that JB was guilty.
It's up to a jury ( such as it is ) to study a case,any case,before reaching their own conclusions instead of being swayed by the words of a judge and the manner in which he says them.It depends how gullible the jury is to take a judges word as  final,,instead of having worked out a case for themselves.
Judges aren't always right in their summing up.
In this case,,,yes,,,,I would blame the judge.

[bloggs and son]

The jury in Jeremy's case,were " persuaded " by the judge who instructed them that the silencer " on its own " could lead them to believe that JB was guilty.
It's up to a jury ( such as it is ) to study a case,any case,before reaching their own conclusions instead of being swayed by the words of a judge and the manner in which he says them.It depends how gullible the jury is to take a judges word as  final,,instead of having worked out a case for themselves.
Judges aren't always right in their summing up.
In this case,,,yes,,,,I would blame the judge.

Note to those on the L forum. who are interested in blacking people's names by revealing skeletons in their past should do their research on Ducky Drake. I will say no more, only "good night ducky".

[jon]

Note to those on the L forum. who are interested in blacking people's names by revealing skeletons in their past should do their research on Ducky Drake. I will say no more, only "good night ducky".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bridgewater-three-to-go-free-1279695.html