Why did two Jurors believe Jeremy was not guilty?

[Adam]

Actually I did, but never mind

Yes you did. Which I have thanked you for.

You will be the first to agree that you're first submission was not up to scratch. Which is why a second submission was supplied. Which even Lookout didn't agree with. Although Lookout, together with the other supporters wisely refrained from submitting a summary.

[Patti]

I think it means that the defence thought that the proper procedures were taken when examining the flake, in other words a solution added to the flake.  But the scientist all examined the same flake that was divided up with no solution added to the flake, thus could result in a false reading.  The term beings with H jan...

[David1819]

on page 13 - what does it mean about the testing of the blood - not done on the single flake?

And has anyone actually seen the full trial transcript?

I think they are mentioning The flake was split up into several pieces in order to do multiple tests

[David1819]

Can we please try to stay on topic ..... Have any of jurors said anything since the trial?

[guest2181]

Can we please try to stay on topic ..... Have any of jurors said anything since the trial?

They don't appear to be able to:

https://www.gov.uk/jury-service/discussing-the-trial

[Jane]

Can we please try to stay on topic ..... Have any of jurors said anything since the trial?

Is there not something -in law- which prevents jury members from speaking out about what transpired in high profile cases? I ask because it has just occurred to me HOW rarely one comes across stories told by jury members.

[ngb1066]

Is there not something -in law- which prevents jury members from speaking out about what transpired in high profile cases? I ask because it has just occurred to me HOW rarely one comes across stories told by jury members.

At one time jurors were free to discuss anything they wanted about the case after the end of the trial, as is the case in the USA.  However, after the Jeremy Thorpe murder trial at the Old Bailey in the 1970s a juror gave an interview to I believe the New Statesman explaining exactly how the jury had reached their not guilty verdict (in essence, they were sure he conspired, but were not sure whether he conspired to kill or just to commit GBH).  There was an outcry and the law was changed.  Now a juror must not reveal anything about the deliberations in the jury room.  However, a juror is allowed to express his or her own opinion about the evidence and what happened in open court. 

[scipio_usmc]

Actually I did, but never mind

Your claims were refuted and you stopped substantively responding because you could not find an alternative that worked and instead were running around claiming I didn't know other sets of stairs existed to deflect from your inability to come up with anything realistic.

[Jane]

At one time jurors were free to discuss anything they wanted about the case after the end of the trial, as is the case in the USA.  However, after the Jeremy Thorpe murder trial at the Old Bailey in the 1970s a juror gave an interview to I believe the New Statesman explaining exactly how the jury had reached their not guilty verdict (in essence, they were sure he conspired, but were not sure whether he conspired to kill or just to commit GBH).  There was an outcry and the law was changed.  Now a juror must not reveal anything about the deliberations in the jury room.  However, a juror is allowed to express his or her own opinion about the evidence and what happened in open court.

Thanks for that Neil. On reflection, perhaps a former jury member MAY decide, as it might prove somewhat difficult to express their OWN opinion without revealing at least SOMETHING of the jury's deliberations, that saying NOTHING would be the safer option.

[scipio_usmc]

Thanks for that Neil. On reflection, perhaps a former jury member MAY decide, as it might prove somewhat difficult to express their OWN opinion without revealing at least SOMETHING of the jury's deliberations, that saying NOTHING would be the safer option.

You most often hear from jurors right after the trial or far down the road if they change their mind.  Public outcry and other things end up tainting their view. On a minority of occasions some solid evidence that has surfaced after will be referred to as a reason they think the wrong mistake was reached but more often they cite distortions reported by the press or oddball things that demonstrate they are not being very rational. 

The most rational jurors tend to not want to talk at all. they did their talking in the deliberation room and want to leave it at that. They will just talk about the case privately. When they talk publicly there is usually an agenda behind it.

[lookout]

I reckon that there'd be more than two jurors who now say he's innocent.

[David1819]

Your claims were refuted and you stopped substantively responding because you could not find an alternative that worked and instead were running around claiming I didn't know other sets of stairs existed to deflect from your inability to come up with anything realistic.

My version was reasonably consistent with what we know of the crime scene weather Adam or You like it of not. I did state why should it be down to me alone to put it all together? Besides I would like to stay on the topic of the jury

[scipio_usmc]

I reckon that there'd be more than two jurors who now say he's innocent.

Based on what evidence?  You and others who support Jeremy have not been able to dent the prosecution's case except in your own minds.

[lookout]

Based on what evidence?  You and others who support Jeremy have not been able to dent the prosecution's case except in your own minds.

Should there be any evidence if he didn't do it ?

[scipio_usmc]

Should there be any evidence if he didn't do it ?

Yes if Sheila actually did it then there should be evidence that she loaded a gun, fired it, beat Nevill and killed herself.  The evidence though is that she can't have killed herself and didn't kill anyone else either.  You have not dented such evidence you just ignore it.  The jurors didn't ignore it. Why would they ignore it now?  They have no reason to change their mind unless the evidence is refuted but it hasn't been.