Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Another question on the Ipswich Murder Trial
Like Dot, I've just watched the news, but I can't understand why the jury were taken to see the places where the bodies were discovered. Will that have any bearing on their final decision? If anyone can explain it, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
not exactly. It may be important (I'm just inventing examples) to see with their own eyes that a place is under a bright street light or is in a dark alley, or to see how near or far apart the different sites are. It's a serious charge and the jury should know as much about the facts as is humanly possible. (I have no idea where the bodies were found as I don't watch a lot of news; there may be others on the jury like me. You can't rely on news reports and you can't rely on either side's lawyers for impartiality.)
-- answer removed --
But the decision they have to take is whether or not the accused murdered the victims, so whether he dumped the bodies in a bin on a housing estate, or by a brook in the country is surely irrelevant to that decision? The question they have to answer is, did he murder them?
Sorry, jno, I have to go to bed now, but I'll catch up tomorrow - and thanks for your answers.
Sorry, jno, I have to go to bed now, but I'll catch up tomorrow - and thanks for your answers.
Naomi, I was thinking exactly the same thing as I was watching the news tonight. I always wonder when I see jurors bussed out to some field somewhere to see the scene of the crime - what possible light can this throw on the case that the jurors aren't going to get from the police reports, witnesses, forensics etc.
It just seems like a strangely macabre sort of 'jolly' for all concerned.
It just seems like a strangely macabre sort of 'jolly' for all concerned.
maybe, naomi, I'm not really following this trial; but the question of, for instance, whether the accused man could have got to these places may turn out to be relevant. I certainly wouldn't trust police reports on things like this; they have been known to make mistakes. The evidence of your own eyes is always best.
As far as the sex goes - it's often best to admit everything but the crime. If he just denied ever having known any of the women, and someone then gave evidence that they'd seen him with them or his DNA was found on them, then he'd make himself very obviously look a liar. But if he admits it all, all except killing them, then he increases his own credibility by looking as if he has nothing to hide. It's a defence tactic.
As far as the sex goes - it's often best to admit everything but the crime. If he just denied ever having known any of the women, and someone then gave evidence that they'd seen him with them or his DNA was found on them, then he'd make himself very obviously look a liar. But if he admits it all, all except killing them, then he increases his own credibility by looking as if he has nothing to hide. It's a defence tactic.
jno, I see what you're saying, but I would have thought journey times between place of crime and where the bodies were found, etc, would be fairly accurately recorded in police reports. A hole like that in a report would be very easy to spot.
angel, jno is right I think. It probably is wisest for him to admit that he had sex with those girls.
ludwig, That's exactly what I thought when I watched the jury trailing around the countryside. It was like a macabre jolly. There must be a valid reason for doing it, but I honestly can't see what extra information they gained from it - or how seeing the sites could possibly influence their final verdict. If timing between scenes of crime and the spots where the bodies were found was critical to the case, perhaps it would be understandable, but Im not sure that is an issue here.
angel, jno is right I think. It probably is wisest for him to admit that he had sex with those girls.
ludwig, That's exactly what I thought when I watched the jury trailing around the countryside. It was like a macabre jolly. There must be a valid reason for doing it, but I honestly can't see what extra information they gained from it - or how seeing the sites could possibly influence their final verdict. If timing between scenes of crime and the spots where the bodies were found was critical to the case, perhaps it would be understandable, but Im not sure that is an issue here.
When criminal trials are reported on TV, what the viewer is told and shown amounts to just a tiny fraction of the evidence presented to the jury. Six hours of evidence presented in court is condensed to, at best, a couple of minutes of news.
The prosecution has an obligation to convince the jury �beyond reasonable doubt� that the defendant committed the crime. This is a hefty burden of proof. The case in question is a complex one involving a number of murders. What nobody (apart from the prosecution and defence advocates) knows yet is the basis of the case for the defence.
I�m only speculating (and that is all any of us can do) but the prosecution may see that it strengthens their case if they can show that not only did the defendant kill the victims but that he also disposed of their bodies. It could well be that the defendant has put forward a feasible reason for visiting the locations where the bodies were found. The prosecution may be trying to demonstrate to the jury that his explanation for being in those locations is implausible. A visit to the sites can provide a far better picture than words in court.
Anyone who has sat on a jury will almost certainly tell you that it is an onerous task, especially when serious offences which may result in a lengthy custodial sentence are involved. Nobody doing the duty properly will convict unless they are absolutely sure, and prosecuting advocates know this.
None of us knows the full details of this case. Whilst it may appear �obvious� to many that the defendant is guilty, fortunately the law requires a little more than that and the prosecuting counsel is best placed to decide what is needed.
As for the cost, it is met by the taxpayer via the Department for Justice. That�s because that is what is hopefully being provided � justice.
The prosecution has an obligation to convince the jury �beyond reasonable doubt� that the defendant committed the crime. This is a hefty burden of proof. The case in question is a complex one involving a number of murders. What nobody (apart from the prosecution and defence advocates) knows yet is the basis of the case for the defence.
I�m only speculating (and that is all any of us can do) but the prosecution may see that it strengthens their case if they can show that not only did the defendant kill the victims but that he also disposed of their bodies. It could well be that the defendant has put forward a feasible reason for visiting the locations where the bodies were found. The prosecution may be trying to demonstrate to the jury that his explanation for being in those locations is implausible. A visit to the sites can provide a far better picture than words in court.
Anyone who has sat on a jury will almost certainly tell you that it is an onerous task, especially when serious offences which may result in a lengthy custodial sentence are involved. Nobody doing the duty properly will convict unless they are absolutely sure, and prosecuting advocates know this.
None of us knows the full details of this case. Whilst it may appear �obvious� to many that the defendant is guilty, fortunately the law requires a little more than that and the prosecuting counsel is best placed to decide what is needed.
As for the cost, it is met by the taxpayer via the Department for Justice. That�s because that is what is hopefully being provided � justice.
Perhaps his defence or the prosecution is arguing that he could have not moved the bodies himself/alone etc etc i am not really following this trial but if a man is sent down for LIFE that is his hole life ruined/over/finished!!!!!! therefore it is only fair that they be given the fairest trial possible and most accurate therefore they would show the jury where the bodies where found. He might have alibies for some of the time so the jury might need to see how noticiable the body would be (if it could have been left there for a long time etc).
He might have had sex with 4 of the girls but his dna was not found on the 5th...if as claimed he had murdered her then surely some dna would be on he.
He might have had sex with 4 of the girls but his dna was not found on the 5th...if as claimed he had murdered her then surely some dna would be on he.
All possibilities, but it's still a mystery to me really. Tonight's TV report said the jury had been shown maps of the Red Light district, so why not show them maps of the areas in which the bodies were found? I know there must be a valid reason for the 'day trip', but I can't imagine what it is. Thanks for all your answers.
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.