Child grooming gang found guilty

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by martyh

You mis understand ,how would he know that the jury had reached a verdict at all on 7 of the defendants ,he should have had no idea if any verdict had been reached on any of the defendants untill they were announced i court

I don't know what the procedure is when juries can't come to a unanimous or majority verdict. Do they report their progress? ie Agreed on 9, no agreement yet on other 2? It would not need a juror to leak any info.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I(f it is true I hope Griffin goes to jail.

Can an MEP still stand if imprisoned?

no idea ,but lets strip him of his MEPship and send him to jail just to be sure

---------- Post added at 16:31 ---------- Previous post was at 16:26 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

I don't know what the procedure is when juries can't come to a unanimous or majority verdict. Do they report their progress? ie Agreed on 9, no agreement yet on other 2?

Honestly don't know ,but i thought the same as others that a jury is not meant to communicate with anybody apart from court officials for advice untill they have a reached a verdict.In this case they had multiple defendants with which to reach a verdict so i assume that they must reach a verdict on all defendants before announcing anything

From the Telegraph

But inquiries carried out by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service showed that the message, which the court heard was first published on the Infidels of Britain website, was published at a time when the jury was in its jury room where all electronic equipment is banned.

Judge Clifton said that ''having heard that the jury deny any improper behaviour'' he was ''satisfied that no juror is at fault in communicating the jury's position, either deliberately or accidentally to anyone else''.

''That means that the question of bias doesn't arise at all,'' he said.
''I have found no evidence to suggest a juror is at fault.''

''The jury have been strictly confined in their jury room during most of the period that some of these tweets manifested themselves.''

Also, the verdict was announced on Tuesday 8th May, and the tweet was sent by Nick Griffin Thursday 3rd May (and immediately back-tracked) - if the verdicts had been reached, what were the jury doing for the rest of the time?

Originally Posted by Hugh

From the Telegraph

Also, the verdict was announced on Tuesday 8th May, and the tweet was sent by Nick Griffin Thursday 3rd May (and immediately back-tracked) - if the verdicts had been reached, what were the jury doing for the rest of the time?

reaching a verdict for the remaining defendants ? there where 11 on trial i believe

Small point, but fairly relevant - Nick Griffin's tweet last Thursday said 7 had been convicted, but all the reports this Tuesday said 9 out of 11 had been found guilty....

Originally Posted by Hugh

Small point, but fairly relevant - Nick Griffin's tweet last Thursday said 7 had been convicted, but all the reports this Tuesday said 9 out of 11 had been found guilty....

That's the whole point Hugh .What prompted the investigation was how did anyone know that the jury had reached verdicts on 7 of the defendants ,this was confirmed as the jury's "current thinking" at that time ,and no-one should have been privy to that information.

Nobody does know if anyone knew that the jury had reached verdicts - just because (and I know this may be stating the bleeding obvious) Nick Griffin says something, doesn't mean it is true....

You state

this was confirmed as the jury's "current thinking" at that time

No one has confirmed this, just a throw away comment in a report, because, as was stated earlier in the thread, discussions about what went on in the jury's deliberations are secret, and to talk about them outside the jury room is illegal (according to section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, it is an offence for anyone to "obtain, disclose or solicit" any arguments, opinions or statements made by jurors in the course of their deliberations).

Originally Posted by Hugh

Nobody does know if anyone knew that the jury had reached verdicts - just because (and I know this may be stating the bleeding obvious) Nick Griffin says something, doesn't mean it is true....

You state No one has confirmed this, just a throw away comment in a report.

Thing is though Hugh in this case he was right ,so right that a investigation was done to try to find out how he knew enough to post a tweet with a "Breaking news" title that proved to 100%correct at the time where actually reaching that verdict .It's either one hell of a guess or he had an insider giving him information

But marty, it's not been proved to be 100% correct - no one has provided evidence to back that up (and how could they, due to Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981).

Willing to be proven wrong, though - but I have searched, and can't find any evidence besides one of the defence lawyers* saying so....

*and he is obviously unbiased, and has no reason to make those statements.....

Originally Posted by Hugh

But marty, it's not been proved to be 100% correct

Yes it has

But the tweet led to eight defence counsel calling on Judge Gerald Clifton to discharge the jury before it delivered verdicts after investigations revealed Griffin's comment to be a "100% accurate" reflection of its deliberations so far

But inquiries carried out by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service showed that the message, which the court heard was first published on the Infidels of Britain website, was published at a time when the jury was in its jury room where all electronic equipment is banned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1499817.html

this has been in all the media outlets since the verdict was announced ,i appreciate that the cps and police say they found nothing untoward but have as yet failed to explain how the information got out, aside from it being a massive coincidence or a good guess ,which quite frankly i find implausible

@nickgriffinmep
Nick Griffin MEPNews flash. Seven of the Muslim paedophile rapists found guilty in Liverpool.
May 3, 2012 12:52 pm via txtReplyRetweetFavorite





The wording of that tweet suggests he had just been given that information.
I hope i am wrong and i hope that idiot Griffin won't be responsible for a retrial but i don't think it is the last we have heard of this .On the other hand a retrial on the grounds of jury tampering could mean stiffer sentences and the end of Griffins career

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I(f it is true I hope Griffin goes to jail.

Can an MEP still stand if imprisoned?

Not if he's shackled to the bed.

marty, again stating the obvious, but it was the defense lawyers* calling for a mis-trial, stating that the tweet was 100% correct - they have provided no evidence for that statement (unless I missed something).

It can only be stated the information was accurate / got out if it can be corroborated - just saying that it was accurate / it did get out (as the defence lawyers are) doesn't make it so.....

*who obviously have not ulterior motive in having a mis-trial declared....

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

marty, again stating the obvious, but it was the defense lawyers* calling for a mis-trial, stating that the tweet was 100% correct - they have provided no evidence for that statement (unless I missed something).

Actually, the bit from The Huffington Post is ambiguous:

But the tweet led to eight defence counsel calling on Judge Gerald Clifton to discharge the jury before it delivered verdicts after investigations revealed Griffin's comment to be a "100% accurate" reflection of its deliberations so far.

It's not clear at all who did the investigation and who made the claim about 100% accuracy.

Originally Posted by Hugh

marty, again stating the obvious, but it was the defense lawyers* calling for a mis-trial, stating that the tweet was 100% correct - they have provided no evidence for that statement (unless I missed something).

Just saying it doesn't make it so.....

*who obviously have not ulterior motive in having a mis-trial declared....

yes you are missing something
Hugh i have given you evidence that states the it was the judge ,the police and the cps that said the tweet was correct .The defence lawyer is repeating the judges findings

"An inquiry by the judge of the jury revealed that this report was true in that they had found seven defendants guilty.

It's not me just saying it or the defence lawyer just saying it ,it is fact and ,all the recent reports are suggesting that it will form the basis of the appeal .It is fact that the tweet happened ,it is fact that it was correct ,it is fact that it was tweeted at the time the jury had reached the guilty verdict of 7 defendants ,what is not known is how the information got out ,the judge has dismissed it as coincidence ,the defence lawyers,understandably, are sceptical of that conclusion

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

yes you are missing something
Hugh i have given you evidence that states the it was the judge ,the police and the cps that said the tweet was correct .The defence lawyer is repeating the judges findings

It's not me just saying it or the defence lawyer just saying it ,it is fact and ,all the recent reports are suggesting that it will form the basis of the appeal .It is fact that the tweet happened ,it is fact that it was correct ,it is fact that it was tweeted at the time the jury had reached the guilty verdict of 7 defendants ,what is not known is how the information got out ,the judge has dismissed it as coincidence ,the defence lawyers,understandably, are sceptical of that conclusion

Where did you get that quote from Marty?