April Jones Trial

[boyfriday]

I have a question and maybe the legal bods can enlighten me.

 

It's just been on the news that the jury will visit the village tomorrow as part of the trial. Can I ask why this is at all necessary?

 

To me it won't provide any more evidence for the trial and is just an attempt by the prosecution to emotionally charge the jury into a guilty verdict*. To me that's unfair and goes against the principle of the right to a fair trial.

 

*We all know he'll be found guilty but still my point still stands.

 

I guess it's to establish the juxtaposition of the relevant locations described in evidence-his house, the river, the location where it's claimed she was abducted from and the place where he said he collided with her in his car.

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2013 at 18:33 ----------

 

It's already reminding me of the Shipman trial when I watched the court reports on the news and thought that unless I'd missed something obvious the bloke had no defence.

 

Very trueLeMaquis, I suppose people facing overwhelming evidence in serious murder cases have nothing to lose in pleading not guilty, as Clown Shoes mentioned earlier.

[Resident]

I guess it's to establish the juxtaposition of the relevant locations described in evidence-his house, the river, the location where it's claimed she was abducted from and the place where he said he collided with her in his car.

 

All of which could be shown in court using photos, maps and even street-view.

[megalithic]

All of which could be shown in court using photos, maps and even street-view.

 

Not the same though is it.

[Halibut]

All of which could be shown in court using photos, maps and even street-view.

 

Not the same though is it.

 

It certainly isn't. Visits by jurors to crime scenes are quite common in serious cases. It helps them to understand the evidence and form a clearer picture of what's alleged to have happened.

 

Why people seem to find it so unusual or odd is beyond me.

[boyfriday]

All of which could be shown in court using photos, maps and even street-view.

 

To be fair a walk up Blake Street is a lot different to a walk down it and you only really appreciate that by doing it!

 

We don't know what's to come out yet but the defendant was active around the scene of the 'abduction' and local area, including carrying the girl's body, he or the prosecution might rely on movements that he might or might not have been able to make and the jury need to know what they're being asked to consider.

[MrSmith]

No sign of revelling anywhere. I think you have issues.

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2013 at 18:11 ----------

 

 

However, the parts he claims he can remember sounds utterly extraordinarily improbable.

 

The parts he can remember might not be real memories, they could be false memories.

 

If he has no recallable memory of the event and the police say they have found blood on his carpets, he could recall a false memory which explains the blood; it doesn’t have to be believable. Didn’t he say he probably killed her, that statement alone implies he is very confused about what actually happened.

[mort]

Posts making personal attacks and those quoting them have been removed. If you want this thread to remain open you will desist from such behaviour.

[callippo]

these kind of trials, turn up about once, or twice a year. The outcome is not in doubt.

[skinz]

The mind is a complex thing, it’s possible that he was severely traumatised by what he did and regret as caused him to create a false memory of the event.

 

A false memory is not the same as lying, he may really believe what he is saying but the memory is false.

 

Far to much Star Trek...those ears look daft too.

 

Sigmund Freud was the first person to theorise that a traumatic event could cause you to create a false memory.

 

It could just as well be the basis for lying characteristically..or he could be that anyway.

[Mr Bloom]

The mind is a complex thing, it’s possible that he was severely traumatised by what he did and regret as caused him to create a false memory of the event.

 

A false memory is not the same as lying, he may really believe what he is saying but the memory is false.

 

Sigmund Freud was the first person to theorise that a traumatic event could cause you to create a false memory.

 

I must admit, I wondered if perhaps he did actually believe what he was saying was true. Whether caused by trauma or just repeatedly convincing yourself, I would have thought it was possible. If the latter, would/could that be evidence of schizophrenia?

 

As other have said, it doesn't look good. I hadn't realised he had been at the parents evening also at the school. I knew there had been speculation about this. On the news I thought it said another girl had been approached and asked if she wanted to come to a sleep-over!