>>If a commitment to wanting sexual harassment identified and properly
>>prosecuted/punished is a 'left' thing then so be it.
I didn't (mean to) say that. Obviously, wanting sexual harassment identified and properly prosecuted is the right thing.
I think the difference is in perception of "properly prosecuted" - and "correctly identified".
And I don't see the irony in the Stuart Hall. Unless they did have better evidence/he had other reasons for not wanting evidence making public, I should think he quite possibly *is* beating the cell walls.
Jury question looks like typical jury question, pondering the imponderable.
‘Miss Moore (the prosecutor), in summing up, said if we believe that the complainant was telling the truth, then we must find the defendant guilty. Can you give us any guidance on how that should be weighed with the lack of supporting evidence and the passage of time so we are sure beyond reasonable doubt?’
The reality is that the judge will have responded by saying exactly the same thing as last time. He will have redefined reasonable doubt (using the same words as the previous time). And he will have told them that they have been presented with the evidence and they should look at it.
Which will have helped them not one jot. And will have caused endless discussion in the jury room as to the law; not the case in hand. (IME of a jury room.)
|