5 Year old missing in Wales.

[sandra L]

Wouldn't Monday's appearance only have been a committal hearing? There isn't usually any plea at committal, as I understand it - I don't think there is even a question about,  how the accused will plead. Also, I don't think the accused or his legal trips have the opportunity to do anything other than confirm his details, and that he understands the charges - the media often report this as  if it's some sort of indication that the accused is cold, cruel and controlled - the last bit's correct - he's controlled, but by the court!

[Lugg]

Wouldn't Monday's appearance only have been a committal hearing? There isn't usually any plea at committal, as I understand it - I don't think there is even a question about,  how the accused will plead. Also, I don't think the accused or his legal trips have the opportunity to do anything other than confirm his details, and that he understands the charges - the media often report this as  if it's some sort of indication that the accused is cold, cruel and controlled - the last bit's correct - he's controlled, but by the court!

Personally I think that this kind of thing puts it into the mind of the public that the police have sufficient evidence on the accused and that the case is sown up? In any case there's no smoke without fire is there?
The jury is chosen from the general public after all. One wonders if MOJ's begin in this way?

[lookout]

Those who maintain that JB is guilty,then compare this case in saying that the police must have compelling evidence to charge this man with murder,why did it take 12 months to convict Jeremy when no evidence was evident.?
In other words,,if the police in this case,know there and then that this man is guilty,why is he in custody until January.?
JB wasn't even in custody,,,yet IF he had been the killer,,,here we had someone who massacred his family,free to carry on.?

[petey]

Those who maintain that JB is guilty,then compare this case in saying that the police must have compelling evidence to charge this man with murder,why did it take 12 months to convict Jeremy when no evidence was evident.?
In other words,,if the police in this case,know there and then that this man is guilty,why is he in custody until January.?
JB wasn't even in custody,,,yet IF he had been the killer,,,here we had someone who massacred his family,free to carry on.?

Saying things like this just ridicules the defence case. Even as JB supporters, must accept that there WAS evidence against JB. Admittedly large parts were circumstantial evidence and although we all have our own views on the strength of Julie's statements, the silencer etc, it IS still evidence. Openly stating that there is no evidence against JB is plain rubbish. It would be far better to challenge the evidence against him to diminish its value.

Time frames for taking a case to trial do no happen overnight and it is common for there to be over a year between the crime being committed and trial.

In this case whereas the police believe he is guilty, unless he has confessed, they do not know 100% know he is guilty. The case has been adjourned until January to allow investigations to continue, in particular the search for April's body.

[lookout]

Saying things like this just ridicules the defence case. Even as JB supporters, must accept that there WAS evidence against JB. Admittedly large parts were circumstantial evidence and although we all have our own views on the strength of Julie's statements, the silencer etc, it IS still evidence. Openly stating that there is no evidence against JB is plain rubbish. It would be far better to challenge the evidence against him to diminish its value.

Time frames for taking a case to trial do no happen overnight and it is common for there to be over a year between the crime being committed and trial.

In this case whereas the police believe he is guilty, unless he has confessed, they do not know 100% know he is guilty. The case has been adjourned until January to allow investigations to continue, in particular the search for April's body.

Evidence against JB was thin,and you know it.! There wasn't even any forensic evidence.

[petey]

Evidence against JB was thin,and you know it.! There wasn't even any forensic evidence.

There was enough evidence to convict him. The fact that there was no forensic evidence does not matter as the cumulative weight of the circumstantial evidence was enough to convince the jury he was guilty.

I was merely making the point that there WAS evidence against JB. How strong we view the evidence is down to our own individual opinions. To state there is no evidence tho is absolute rubbish.

[Roch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

[susan]

Hi lookout  I agree the evidence against JB was thin and not quite enough to convince the full jury.

[petey]

Hi lookout  I agree the evidence against JB was thin and not quite enough to convince the full jury.

Or you could say that the evidence against JB was so strong that it convinced 10 members of the jury that he was guilty beyone reasonable doubt of the cold blooded murder of 5 people, including 2 young children!!!

You can put whatever spin you wish to do on the evidence.

[Roch]

I expect there are all kinds of evidence.  Genuine evidence.  For example a person is caught on CCTV pointing a gun at a shop assistant.   'Improved' or manipulated evidence.  Statements that are 'sexed up' or scratch marks that were benign but that can be made to be sinister.  Circumstantial evidence. Like a man climbing through a window, for whatever reason.  Fabricated evidence like the kind used in Operation Mincemeat.

Maybe we should steer this thread back on to little April Jones.

[susan]

petey did I infer in my post I thought JB to be not guilty I was merely pointing out from what information I have gleaned from this forum that the evidence was thin and as you told me yourself previously it was the Judge's summing up that convinced the majority of the jury of his guilt.

[Patti]

Sometimes it is how the barristers project that evidence to the jury.

[petey]

petey did I infer in my post I thought JB to be not guilty I was merely pointing out from what information I have gleaned from this forum that the evidence was thin and as you told me yourself previously it was the Judge's summing up that convinced the majority of the jury of his guilt.

Any trial judge's summing up will obviously influence a jury in their decision making. I doubt whether i have ever stated that it conclusively convinced a jury member.

However, the jury will be more influenced by how the case and evidence has played out in court. Here, I don't think it is any secret that JB's defence team were well beaten by the prosecution, making it easier for the jury to believe the prosecution case and prosecution witnesses came across as more believable.

[susan]

petey you did not say conclusively but that and the silencer were the deciding factors for the jury to find JB guilty but you did give me the impression the Judge's summing up was very powerful.  Maybe I read too much into that.

[Patti]

Have I to make another topic so we can discuss evidence and how it is used?  This thread is for April.

It would interesting to discuss how evidence in used in various ways and in each case as it appears in the thread? Does anyone agree with me....or shall I keep quiet and do a bit of ironing