On Mar 29, 1:52=A0am, "Janitor of Lunacy" wrote:
>
> I didn't dismiss it, if you read with care what I wrote. I said that if it=
> was used at the trial, it may not have been given much credence, and I hav=
e
> explained why.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have explained a lot more about the conduct of judges behind the
scenes.
It is a matter for the jury to decide the credibility of any evidence
and not a judge to tell them what to give credence to and what to
dismiss.
Juries are ordinary people who live in the real world unlike judges
and barristers.
They are well capable of distinguishing between crap such as Tony
Holland's delusional rants and facts.
These liars are patently obvious but they are about and that is for
the jury to decide.
But you may well be right in that the judge may have told the jury to
dismiss it because she was
a drug addict and a prostitute etc. On the other hand Wright's lawyer
probably didnt make enough of an issue out of that evidence that would
have eliminated his client, and at the very least cast serious doubt
over his guilt.
Credence and credibility is something that judges have stolen from the
judicial system and they treat jurors like they were children telling
them what to believe.
Surely the whole idea of a jury is for them to decide on the
credibility of the evidence. The judge should only be a chairman
ensuring order and due legal process but definitely not directing the
jury as they always do.
|