Trial by jury

It has been a corner stone of the justice system that a trial in which a mix of ones fellow citizens decide, after listening to all the argument and seeing all the evidence, whether a person is guilty or innocent, the jury system is deemed the most trustworthy method .
When the jury begins their stint of sitting through a trial, its the end of a process that begins with the police gathering evidence.  Having decided there is a case to answer they submit their findings to the Public Prosecutor who having gone over the evidence in detail calls for a trial date to be set.
Its hard to imagine that professionals, such as the police and the legal experts in the Prosecutors Office can get it wrong. The case is built on evidence, not here-say and one must presume that there is evidence of wrong doing, otherwise no one in their right minds would risk the criticism if they were to get it wrong. Procedure is important,  known criminals have got off on a technicality, perhaps in the charge office in the police station when something that should have been made clear wasn't and the case is thrown out when it comes to court.
The Law is an ass, at least to the ordinary person in the street it is, when clever barristers pick apart the meaning behind the meaning, challenging witnesses to remember what had happened possibly months before and then alight on some tiny discrepancy which they purport to cast doubt on everything the witness has said or observed.
Its a game of semantics in which the skill of casting doubt is the aim, irrespective of the character or the previous convictions of the accused. A good defence barrister is worth his weight in gold and his services are not cheep. No wonder the justice is often tempered when the rich and the powerful have at their resource the best legal team in the land the defence barrister plays the jury, often extracting a 'not guilty' decision when common sense confirms that there is never smoke without fire.
Rebekah Brooks the editor of the News of the World, and her husband Charley Brooks,  have just received not guilty verdicts on all 6 charges brought against them whilst Andy Coulson her deputy has been found guilty. She the darling of Rupert Murdock and he an old school chum of David Cameron and close neighbours of the Prime Minister could call on the best when it came to representation. Andy Coulson was in a different league. Editor and Deputy Editor, cheek by jowl in the business of running the same paper, lovers to boot and yet he knew about the phone hacking (the charge for which they were accused) and she didn't, or so the jury have concluded. As with virtually all things in life money talks loudest !!!                    

http://twocents2012.blogspot.com.au/