gaaboard.com

New thread to see what people think believe happened on the night and what will happen with the verdict. Keep discussion to the main thread

It's like an episode of Eastenders.

Why is there not a 'don't know' option because I really don't know. Also there are 4 separate individuals being tried. I'm not actually sure a poll is a great idea on this.

Surprising results so far!

There should be a Schrodinger's Cat option.

Well the one thing we've (almost) all agreed on is that they get off be found not guilty.

Three sets of jury's and it's a simple case by the looks of it

Is this  thread contempt of court?  ;)

Well it shows Syferus has 3 accounts going

I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 09:06:58 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

A good friend of mine who is an actual solicitor told me that juries normally get it right.  Let's hope so in this case.

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 09:26:46 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 09:06:58 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

A good friend of mine who is an actual solicitor told me that juries normally get it right.  Let's hope so in this case.

I said that on the main thread. Whatever decision the jury makes is the right one generally as unlike us they have listened to all the evidence and can make a clear and informed decision. Rare that a guilty man gets off or an innocent man convicted

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 09:36:47 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 09:26:46 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 09:06:58 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

A good friend of mine who is an actual solicitor told me that juries normally get it right.  Let's hope so in this case.

I said that on the main thread. Whatever decision the jury makes is the right one generally as unlike us they have listened to all the evidence and can make a clear and informed decision. Rare that a guilty man gets off or an innocent man convicted

How do you know though?

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 23, 2018, 09:38:04 AM

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 09:36:47 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 09:26:46 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 09:06:58 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

A good friend of mine who is an actual solicitor told me that juries normally get it right.  Let's hope so in this case.

I said that on the main thread. Whatever decision the jury makes is the right one generally as unlike us they have listened to all the evidence and can make a clear and informed decision. Rare that a guilty man gets off or an innocent man convicted

How do you know though?

Experience, having seen the system in operation, the amount of appeals that are unsuccessful as opposed to successful. For a crown court case to be appealed on the conviction there has to be a point of law. That is very difficult to do as what that generally means is that a judge had erred in their charge and directions or in some legal argument that has not been seen by the jury. This is always possible but not often. The reality is that for a case to get to trial there has to be a significant amount of hoops and loops that need to be gone through. That doesn't mean though that there are all bankers for guilty. In a PE all that has to be shown is that there is a prima facie case....on the face of it a crime occurred and the people charged with it are responsible for it. This is a low bar in terms of proving there are charges to be answered and it is rare for a case to be thrown out at PE stage. The other thing is a trial like this one is a 'celebrity ' one and will be covered wall to wall. If you go down the Magistrates Court innthe north or the district court in the south there are hundreds of cases being dealt with on a daily basis in each court. 95% of those will end up with a guilty plea.

Not followed the details of this sordid matter too closely, but I imagine if this trial was being held under Scottish law the "not proven" verdict might have been a possibility.

I put Don't know and I am willing to trust the jury on this one and I will take their judgement on it.

I hope everyone else will.

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 09:36:47 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 09:26:46 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 09:06:58 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

A good friend of mine who is an actual solicitor told me that juries normally get it right.  Let's hope so in this case.

I said that on the main thread. Whatever decision the jury makes is the right one generally as unlike us they have listened to all the evidence and can make a clear and informed decision. Rare that a guilty man gets off or an innocent man convicted

You've said this twice but how can you even accurately judge that a jury get a decision right? Ultimately you'll only know they got it wrong if they make an egregious mistake (Rodney King, OJ) or there is some new evidence that comes to light. What about all the cases coated in shades of gray, which includes alot of sexual assault and rape cases?

At the end of the day juries are just people and people are prone to biases and errors. People will try to see what they want to see, as this trial has shown. You've too much faith in a subjective system.

So basically what he's saying, Syferus will be right regardless of the verdict, and gives the system no credence..

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 10:46:09 AM
So basically what he's saying, Syferus will be right regardless of the verdict, and gives the system no credence..

Nope. Can you read?

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 10:46:09 AM
So basically what he's saying, Syferus will be right regardless of the verdict,

Syfīn is always right about everything all the time. 



Better put one of these  ;D in for the benefit of the 6 Cos folks.

Quote from: Syferus on March 23, 2018, 10:42:56 AM

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 09:36:47 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 09:26:46 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 09:06:58 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

A good friend of mine who is an actual solicitor told me that juries normally get it right.  Let's hope so in this case.

I said that on the main thread. Whatever decision the jury makes is the right one generally as unlike us they have listened to all the evidence and can make a clear and informed decision. Rare that a guilty man gets off or an innocent man convicted

You've said this twice but how can you even accurately judge that a jury get a decision right? Ultimately you'll only know they got it wrong if they make an egregious mistake (Rodney King, OJ) or there is some new evidence that comes to light. What about all the cases coated in shades of gray, which includes alot of sexual assault and rape cases?

At the end of the day juries are just people and people are prone to biases and errors. People will try to see what they want to see, as this trial has shown. You've too much faith in a subjective system.

The Rodney Kings and the OJs are the exception to the rule and I don't see how you can use cases in a different jurisdiction as an equivalence. They are the ones that make the 'big' news that people feed into and see as the way the system works, albeit in a different country with different dynamics and undertones. Everyone is prone to bias and error but the reality is that this is the system that there is. The majority of the time the system works correctly. At times

We also have an appellate court structure for a reason. Occasionally judges, juries etc will make mistakes but the system allows the mistakes to be corrected when and if they have occurred reducing significantly the potential for miscarriages

Not a big talker on the board and I will keep my thoughts to myself on my opinion of this trial, but I wanted to say fair play to brokencrossbar1 and davidmckeown for giving a proper insight into how this case might work and their thoughts on it. They have been the most insightful posts to read here against a back drop of perceived knowledge and jumped to conclusions so maith sibh. No matter the outcome, 5 lives will be adversly affected, no matter of guilt or innonence. Annonimity should be mandatory for cases like these, for everyones sake.

Quote from: Syferus on March 23, 2018, 10:42:56 AM

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 09:36:47 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 09:26:46 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 09:06:58 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

A good friend of mine who is an actual solicitor told me that juries normally get it right.  Let's hope so in this case.

I said that on the main thread. Whatever decision the jury makes is the right one generally as unlike us they have listened to all the evidence and can make a clear and informed decision. Rare that a guilty man gets off or an innocent man convicted

You've said this twice but how can you even accurately judge that a jury get a decision right? Ultimately you'll only know they got it wrong if they make an egregious mistake (Rodney King, OJ) or there is some new evidence that comes to light. What about all the cases coated in shades of gray, which includes alot of sexual assault and rape cases?

At the end of the day juries are just people and people are prone to biases and errors. People will try to see what they want to see, as this trial has shown. You've too much faith in a subjective system.

Spot on. Find it strange that people can state most juries get it right etc etc. Unless you can view or witness a crime you don't really know. DNA etc can help, but in cases like this its simply down to jurors opinion, barrister percormance and defendants/claimants acting ability. As for appeals, it's not easy to be able to be granted an appeal unless its on a point of law/error. Take this case for example, seems 50/50 and if Jackson et all are convicted, could they appeal (if trial followed procedure correctly and judge did their job)? Also seems easier for the prosecution to get another go than the defence

Quote from: andoireabu on March 24, 2018, 03:39:52 AM
Not a big talker on the board and I will keep my thoughts to myself on my opinion of this trial, but I wanted to say fair play to brokencrossbar1 and davidmckeown for giving a proper insight into how this case might work and their thoughts on it. They have been the most insightful posts to read here against a back drop of perceived knowledge and jumped to conclusions so maith sibh. No matter the outcome, 5 lives will be adversly affected, no matter of guilt or innonence. Annonimity should be mandatory for cases like these, for everyones sake.

Confucius him say" he who dips wick must pay for oil"

Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2018, 04:37:10 PM

Quote from: Syferus on March 23, 2018, 10:42:56 AM

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 09:36:47 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 09:26:46 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 09:06:58 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

A good friend of mine who is an actual solicitor told me that juries normally get it right.  Let's hope so in this case.

I said that on the main thread. Whatever decision the jury makes is the right one generally as unlike us they have listened to all the evidence and can make a clear and informed decision. Rare that a guilty man gets off or an innocent man convicted

You've said this twice but how can you even accurately judge that a jury get a decision right? Ultimately you'll only know they got it wrong if they make an egregious mistake (Rodney King, OJ) or there is some new evidence that comes to light. What about all the cases coated in shades of gray, which includes alot of sexual assault and rape cases?

At the end of the day juries are just people and people are prone to biases and errors. People will try to see what they want to see, as this trial has shown. You've too much faith in a subjective system.

Spot on. Find it strange that people can state most juries get it right etc etc. Unless you can view or witness a crime you don't really know. DNA etc can help, but in cases like this its simply down to jurors opinion, barrister percormance and defendants/claimants acting ability. As for appeals, ots not eaay to be able to be granted an appeal unless its on a point of law/error. Take this case for example, seems 50/50 and if Jackson et all are convicted, could they appeal (if trial followed procedure correctly and judge did their job)? Also seems easier for the prosecution to get another go than the defence

You've lost me with that last line there.

Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2018, 04:37:10 PM

Quote from: Syferus on March 23, 2018, 10:42:56 AM

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 09:36:47 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 09:26:46 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 09:06:58 AM

Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 08:55:58 AM
I'm just surprised that everyone didn't tick "Don't Know"

I dont think what happened was planned nor the norm, I think it was going a certain direction and then escalated and its got to the point were it was impossible to go back to the start and reset...A very costly (in all manners) situation will have no winners here..

Hopefully the jury will have not listened to the stuff on social media, though i doubt it very much, I hope they make their call based on the facts they have heard and not the ramblings of the fireside lawyers (barring the couple on here who are from the legal profession, not you Syferus)

A good friend of mine who is an actual solicitor told me that juries normally get it right.  Let's hope so in this case.

I said that on the main thread. Whatever decision the jury makes is the right one generally as unlike us they have listened to all the evidence and can make a clear and informed decision. Rare that a guilty man gets off or an innocent man convicted

You've said this twice but how can you even accurately judge that a jury get a decision right? Ultimately you'll only know they got it wrong if they make an egregious mistake (Rodney King, OJ) or there is some new evidence that comes to light. What about all the cases coated in shades of gray, which includes alot of sexual assault and rape cases?

At the end of the day juries are just people and people are prone to biases and errors. People will try to see what they want to see, as this trial has shown. You've too much faith in a subjective system.

Spot on. Find it strange that people can state most juries get it right etc etc. Unless you can view or witness a crime you don't really know. DNA etc can help, but in cases like this its simply down to jurors opinion, barrister percormance and defendants/claimants acting ability. As for appeals, it's not easy to be able to be granted an appeal unless its on a point of law/error. Take this case for example, seems 50/50 and if Jackson et all are convicted, could they appeal (if trial followed procedure correctly and judge did their job)? Also seems easier for the prosecution to get another go than the defence

I quite clearly stated that generally they make the right call. There are mistakes but not as many as you would think. There are a hell of a lot of trials in Northern Ireland every year and I'd say that more than not the decisions are correct.

As for your last line please can you give examples of this

Is the threshold for an appeal the same as that which the prosecution needs to meet in order to have a second try at someone initially found innocent?

Quote from: nrico2006 on March 26, 2018, 08:30:29 AM
Is the threshold for an appeal the same as that which the prosecution needs to meet in order to have a second try at someone initially found innocent?

The exact same criteria.

so there's no double jeopardy in NI Law? If my TV watching has taught me anything, it's that you can't be tried twice for the same crime in the US.

Sorry lads you have lost me yet again

There can be a retrial if acquitted if there is new and compelling evidence. Has to be an application made but there would have to be very good new evidence.

Edit...also has to be a 'public Interest' Test done on it so that it is deemed to be in the best interests of the public to retry someone.

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 26, 2018, 12:13:17 PM
There can be a retrial if acquitted if there is new and compelling evidence. Has to be an application made but there would have to be very good new evidence.

Would that include Syferus coming up to Belfast in his charoit claiming he knows they are guilty?