Why did two Jurors believe Jeremy was not guilty?

[David1819]

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.

The evidence has been dented its you that ignores it.

[David1819]

They don't appear to be able to:

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

A juror from the Colin Norris trial spoke to panorama. I thought they can discuss the trail but not what happens during deliberation 

[scipio_usmc]

The evidence has been dented its you that ignores it.

Then post evidence that dents it.  You have failed to do so to date. I posted the evidence all laid out nice and neat in numerous threads. You have not posted anything that refutes it.

[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. 

A juror from the Colin Norris trial spoke to panorama. I thought they can discuss the trail but not what happens during deliberation 

David, as you can see, Neil has already provided that in formation

[Patti]

A perfect example is the John Bodkin Adam's case.  Not jurors, but leading prosecution witnesses who were nurses.  One evening after giving evidence all 3 nurses sat on a train together and discussed the case. That discussion from the train went straight back to the defence team. Needless to say Sir Frederick Lawrence has a field day with it in court and won the day.

To this day Adam's could have been this Country's worst ever serial killer, but he was acquitted.

[David1819]

Then post evidence that dents it.  You have failed to do so to date. I posted the evidence all laid out nice and neat in numerous threads. You have not posted anything that refutes it.

Go back and read my posts its all there

[David1819]

A perfect example is the John Bodkin Adam's case.  Not jurors, but leading prostitution witnesses who were nurses.  One evening after giving evidence all 3 nurses sat on a train together and discussed the case. That discussion from the train went straight back to the defence team. Needless to say Sir Frederick Lawrence has a field day with it in court and won the day.

To this day Adam's could have been this Country's worst ever serial killer, but he was acquitted.

Hahahahaha 

[Patti]

Hahahahaha 

Same thing innit?

Oh crikey!  Where the heck did that come from. 

[ngb1066]

A juror from the Colin Norris trial spoke to panorama. I thought they can discuss the trail but not what happens during deliberation 

That is correct.

[lookout]

I don't remember that being included in my duties.

[Patti]

I don't remember that being included in my duties.

If it made someone laugh who cares hahaha 

[ngb1066]

A perfect example is the John Bodkin Adam's case.  Not jurors, but leading prosecution witnesses who were nurses.  One evening after giving evidence all 3 nurses sat on a train together and discussed the case. That discussion from the train went straight back to the defence team. Needless to say Sir Frederick Lawrence has a field day with it in court and won the day.

To this day Adam's could have been this Country's worst ever serial killer, but he was acquitted.

It was a fascinating case.  Adams was of course on trial for his life so the case got a lot of publicity.  The defence managed to retain Professor Keith Simpson, the most eminent Pathologist of the time.  This was his first, and I believe the only trial where he gave evidence for the defence. 

[maggie]

Same thing innit?

Oh crikey!  Where the heck did that come from. 

I wondered what that was Patti, think the old predictive text got the better of you 

[Jan]

I guess that the two things they concentrated on were Julies evidence and the blood in the silencer . Perhaps those jurors did not believe her.

Or perhaps they were one of the ones who asked the question about what the relatives had to gain by JB being found guilty?

[David1819]

I guess that the two things they concentrated on were Julies evidence and the blood in the silencer . Perhaps those jurors did not believe her.

Or perhaps they were one of the ones who asked the question about what the relatives had to gain by JB being found guilty?

we can guess, but I would to know    in fact have any of the 12 jurors every said anything in the last 30 years?