These concerns were expressed in court by members of the legal fraternity...apparently they have never seen anything like that before...so yes...i am fishing
it may not be very common but it is not unusual and as i understand it that is the procedure for a verdct that is not unanimous if it is returned under a stipulated period of time.
i have no reason to suspect thatt he jurors would have known about that procedure until the judge told them about it. it would have been a mistrial if he asked them what was the verdict at that time.
Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.Thomas Paine
no...what i am saying is when the jurors came out the first time they said they came to a 10-1 decision...information came from somewhere (not the court) that the verdict was a guilty one...apparently somebone on the jury leaked that it was a guilty verdict because NNN reported that...then the judge had the jurors return to deliberation because of the 2 hour rule...
what will be interesting to me is that the juror is said to have tried to bribe the foreman for the not guilty verdict and only 4 persons could stand to benefit from it. Will this be an issue in the appeal? because the inference is that someone must have been paying him for that and all eyes are again on kartel.
then there was the gaza slim incident where she claimed that she was robbed by lizard which turned out to be a fabricated incident the intent of which must have been to show that lizard was alive, and then there is the letter to the public defender, why would chow recant that letter in the manner that he did, if he had in fact written it.
somebody's hand has been at work in all of this. the police probably made some usual blunders but some seem to have been "encouraged".
Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.Thomas Paine
Recognizing the victims of Jamaica's horrendous criminality and exposing the Dummies like Dippy supporting criminals by their deeds.. or their silence.
he identified them being at the house at a certain time with Lizard...the evidence provided did not support that timeline...but the judge in his summation told the jurors to disregard the timeline (timestamps...cell phone tower data)...he lied about Shane Williams being "Terrence"...and his timeline of events does not match the digital evidence...
Comment