koutoubia wrote: » We took 3 and a half days to come to a verdict.The jury room went from being a sound place with sound people to a very tense place with some heated exchanges taking place.
freshpopcorn wrote: » Did anybody hear Liveline Today? I saw a Tweet saying that Quirke's mother rang in to say he got prosession of the family home against her will in 2005. It sounded messy.
Muahahaha wrote: » Interesting. Would you say there is opportunity for those who are more vocal to influence others with speeches/grandstanding or outright manipulation? Is the jury room supervised with notes taken or is it just the 12 and a free for all? Like just on the Quirke trial a lot of posters on this thread have said they felt he was guilty but the evidence was too circumstantial. If you had an influential juror believing the same then it could well be possible that they influence just two others and tip the balance. You've also got to think of the dynamic amongst the jurors, they are eating together several times a day, transported to court together, holed up in the same hotel for weeks on end so friendships must develop, in fact Id say some jurors end up sleeping with other jurors frequently enough. It all creates a situation where it doesnt sound that hard for one person to influence another few.
Muahahaha wrote: » Ive often thought about the dynamic in jury delibrations. As you say a certain type of person is likely to put themselves forward to be the foreman. Its likely this person is good at public speaking, good at convincing others of their argument. They might be a manager in their job, have leadership attributes, etc. All of which begs the question that if the foreman believes a suspect is not guilty do they have the opportunity to influence just two other jurors of the same in the jury room. Is there a court clerk in the jury room taking notes of everything that is said by each person? And if so do the barristers for each side get to see those notes and argue if it was a 'fair' deliberation or point out that one juror had an undue influence on other jurors. So many questions.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » The jury deliberates with just the twelve. No one else. They can decide to ask for clarification on points with the judge, but otherwise it is just those twelve.
Muahahaha wrote: » Thats interesting. I find it strange that the conversations arent at least recorded, I mean all sorts could be said in there. You could even have one of those bully types whose been got to by associates of the suspect and bribed to produce a not guilty verdict. Over a number of weeks he then gets friendly with a few other jurors in an effort to influence them into a not guilty verdict. Without a record of what is said in that room it makes corrupting the process a lot easier. I wonder how they do it in other countries. Also post trial you are not allowed to speak to the media. What did the judge say to your group in relation to this, was there a threat of prison time if you did break the silence?
Muahahaha wrote: » Like just on the Quirke trial a lot of posters on this thread have said they felt he was guilty but the evidence was too circumstantial.
john9876 wrote: » Another thing I don't understand is whether he put the body in the slurry tank immediately after killing him or whether he put it there very recently? If he put the body there immediately after killing him surely the gardai would have noticed the disturbed ground and searched the tank ... or am I giving too much credit to the boys in blue!
Deleted User wrote: The defense tried their damndest to lay the blame on Mary Lowry and failed.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » Being holed up in hotels doesn't happen anymore. But lunches and breaks do alright. The quiet ones will often analyse the evidence, the vocal ones can be bullies and just shout out loud. It is not a nice place that jury room, believe me.
Muahahaha wrote: » Aw right, for some reason I had thought that when a trial is to last several weeks/months that all jurors staying in the same hotel to prevent them going home and discussing the trial/evidence with family and friends who are also following it in the media. Not putting them in a hotel makes the process even worse IMO, like what juror isnt going to go home and have a natter about the details of what they spent the day hearing? We're all human, you couldnt not talk about it to your partner who then also has an opinion, one that very much might influence you. In your own case were your three trials in a specific county with all jurors living in that county and commuting from home to the courts every day? Were there any measures taken to ensure that jurors couldnt be 'got' to by assoiciates of the suspect? Id be very reluictant to serve on a jury for fear of something like that happening. Criminals are violent people and they'll do anything to get their way.
Aska wrote: » They did and the media did their bit too with the whole 'Mr. Moonlight' angle on all reports as if poor Bobby was a sex pest while he did the DJing as a hobby and the trucking job was his main daily job.
Muahahaha wrote: » Have to agree with this, the way the media used the Mr.Moonlight moniker was really trashy. I didn't even know he was a truck driver till you just said it now. Yet every single day across radio stations you always heard the exact same words- "Bobby Ryan, a part-time DJ also known as Mr. Moonlight". To me there was an element in the media of a kind of covert sniggering at the victim, the media wanted to sensationlise the story and they wanted listeners to draw innuendo from their reporting that he was a DJ. I would expect that type of trashy reporting from the Sun or the Star but RTE was leading the line on the whole Mr.Moonlight thing, they did it so much it was almost like they were taking glee from it all.
PhilOssophy wrote: » I wondered that myself. He must have hidden it somewhere while the farm was at least somewhat searched. The van drove over the cattle grid a little later than normal, by which stage Bobby Ryan was dead I'd say. I'd imagine he drove the van to Bansha to give him enough time to get the place cleaned up on the farm, he could easily have hidden it in a few bales or something. It wasn't the boys in blue's finest hour by any means but they were quick enough to get the larvae expert on the job which proved to be vital in the case of proving the tank was open in the lead up to the staged discovery
koutoubia wrote: » On the first point : ...And it is of course just going on what I experienced.... Yes I can imagine that one 'vocal outspoken' person can have an influence. In my case there were 3 or 4 so they nullified each other. The jury room is just that. A room for the jury only. No one except the jury, the jury minder and a cleaner who has strict intrusctions as to what they can touch and look at. Essentially it a free for all but with unlimited supply of coffee, tea and bikkies. There is a certain similarity between this trial and the one I was involved in and its that the jury I was on believed someone else was pulling the strings BUT we had to remind ourselves that they were not on trial and we coiuld only make a decision about the person on trial. It was difficult but had to be done.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » they had nothing like that on Glenroe.
paleoperson wrote: » My system would be like this: Have 24 people. Every individual in turn gives their preliminary vote and attempts to justify it - so if someone thinks of something another person didn't they can hear it. No more deliberations after that. Some people say that deliberations are necessary to make sure everyone remembers and understands/connects all the evidence - well how about all jury members must also undergo a non-trivial quiz at the end of the trial making sure they understood it all? This would ensure that people are for the incredibly serious job.
paleoperson wrote: » Could there be an inkling of the CSI effect about this, I wonder. Or is the idea of the CSI effect a bunch of hokum made up by dodgy prosecutors?
Spleerbun wrote: » It may be flawed but the problem is that I don't see any better way of doing these things. Apart from maybe just letting the judge decide, but I don't think anyone is particularly happy these days with judges in this country tbh
PhilOssophy wrote: » I wondered that myself. He must have hidden it somewhere while the farm was at least somewhat searched. The van drove over the cattle grid a little later than normal, by which stage Bobby Ryan was dead I'd say. I'd imagine he drove the van to Bansha to give him enough time to get the place cleaned up on the farm, he could easily have hidden it in a few bales or something.
koutoubia wrote: » The BOLD type above.... Why no more deliberations? That would almost defeat the purpose of having a jury. For mine when we went in to start deliberating we did a quick around the table of 'Guilty or Not Guilty' before we started to deliberate. I sat on the fence as I simply didnt know....which meant that I had a doubt which meant not guilty! From memory at least 2 others changed their mind. The deliberations kept going until we got to a stage where everyone was comfortable that they had come to a decision.
koutoubia wrote: » For the italics above...a large part of that would fall down to the barristers in court to make it plain and clear to the jury what their question is and what it means . They waffle on in legal parlance all they want and sound important BUT if they dont convinc the jury then they are losing the battle.
Stacksofwacks wrote: » My speculation is there was a violent confrontation in the yard that morning which Lowry wasnt oblivious to. Ryan ends up on the ground dead. The two then decide to dispose the body and keep it quiet.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » Would it be very wrong of me to think that Q's wife might have been controlled by her husband. I doubt many wives or others cuckolded would stand by their man in full view. Anyway, it is tragic for the family of Bobby Ryan no matter what.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
