How are jurors in the Diana/Dodi inquest supposed to 'ignore All You've Heard Before'?
Jurors at the inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi al Fayed must ignore a decade of intense news coverage, books and TV documentaries about the case, the coroner has said as jury selection began. Lord Justice Scott Baker told the potential jurors, who have been randomly selected from the electoral roll, that the deaths had "created worldwide interest on an unprecedented scale".
He said: "You have to put out of your mind anything you have heard out of court.It will not be easy to do that in this particular case but you have to."
Does anyon else think that this is very unrealistic? I understand why he says it as they need to be open minded, but is that really likely to happen?
2007-09-27 11:31:34 · 13 answers · asked by ohyesindeed 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
(Sky news = source)
2007-09-27 11:31:52 · update #1
Forget the electoral roll they should have got the Jury from Mars.
How can anyone forget what they have heard before? Impossible for a jury member to be impartial on this.
2007-09-27 11:35:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
i don't. I recommend, he grow to be lied to with the aid of the owner and coach, has no faith or appreciate for them anymore, and does not desire to play there anymore. a typical individual who's mistreated of their job can pass away and locate employment interior their container someplace else, Cutler can not, so his in basic terms selection is to request a commerce. As for what he's accomplished in his profession, he's placed up solid numbers and led an incredible offense. final season they have been the #2 ranked offense in the league. diverse human beings will factor to his sub-.500 checklist as a starter, yet i'm specific the different QB may well be below .500, even Manning, Brady, etc. with that protection. he's accomplished each and every thing he ought to to lead them to effectual, and their protection is terrible. I study someplace he's 13-a million while the protection facilitates 21 or fewer, and that a million loss grow to be an OT loss the place he in no way observed the ball. Its needless to say evident that they had a solid offense and undesirable protection, and the 1st element McDaniels does is attempt to alter the offense, hearth the offensive coordinator to usher in his very own, and attempt to change Cutler.
2016-10-20 04:23:17 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is often said to jurors by a judge as they can be biased by something that they have read or heard. However I do agree with you as it it very unrealistic and nearly impossible. But where would you get a jury to try O.J. Simpson and expect them to forget everything that they had read. Maybe 12 men and women from Tibet
2007-09-27 11:41:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
Let's be realistic people. It is nothing to do with "hanging onto tabloid gossip". We are talking about the fundamentals of the case.
There are not many people in the UK who will not know that Diana died in a car crash in Paris. This applies to most people eligible for jury service. This does not mean that they are celebrity worshippers, nor does it mean that they are hysterics. It is highly unrealistic to expect anyone to push ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING you know about this case out of your mind, as the fact tthat she died is a basic fact that everyone knows.
Whether you care about what happened or not, the fact remains that you will know something about it. To pretend otherwise is blind.
2007-09-27 12:02:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
It will be hard if you think she was murdered.... I would love to know who the jurors are... and because of the controversy over the case, will they have been 'carefully' selected? I know this should never happen and it's all supposed to be random but it just a thought..........
2007-09-27 11:41:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I would probably make a good juror for this case. I haven't read a word about it and I don't pay any attention to the tabloid type of coverage these kinds of cases have.
In short, I don't thing it will be all that difficult to seat a jury. After all not everyone hangs on every word and picture published about every celebrity on the planet.
2007-09-27 11:43:05 · answer #6 · answered by gimpalomg 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Might as well get old Charles in on the jury
2007-09-27 11:37:43 · answer #7 · answered by Chris 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
gimpalong, I don't like celeb news crap either, thats not the point. This crap has been everywhere for 10 years and permeated this dumbass society, like it or not, you will have an idea in your mind of what happened or didn't because of what you have heard, regardless of the fact that you do not give a rat's ar$e about it. Thats the point.
2007-09-27 11:51:58 · answer #8 · answered by ms vicci pollard 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Hard, yes, since it's difficult to unlearn things... Unrealistic? No...
They're simply saying that they do not want jurors' opinion of the present case skewed by what they may have heard in the many years since the deaths. I don't think it would be a hard thing to do.
2007-09-27 11:37:33 · answer #9 · answered by Sarah R 6 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Not everyone has followed the News reports so therefore I say yes that there are people capable of being open minded and fair.
2007-09-27 11:43:25 · answer #10 · answered by D 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋