Madeleine:Two British men declared arguidos and a British couple are witnesess

aiyoyo wrote:

Joss wrote:I am wondering about these people that are being called "suspects/arguidos". That is implying that they are saying they have evidence for involvement of someone disappearing a child in Portugal, otherwise why would they call them suspects? They can't just do that on a whim can they, as that is a pretty strong accusation to make. 

Arguido has the right to remain silent (notorious example St. Kate refusal to answer the 48 Q).  I believe it has got to do how (or if) their answer or silence can or cannot be used against them in a Court of law.

 Equivalent to UK "right to remain silent" - to protect a person during criminal proceedings from self incriminating answer coerced out of them under pressure/duress in the absence of legal representation and/or to protect them from adverse consequence of remaining silent.  

It's privilege against "self incrimination" in a nutshell.

As to how the OG determines which person to be interviewed should be given or not given the arguido status is a mystery.  It must be evidence-based as a basis one would think.

Since the McCanns claim that there is no evidence against them it would seem anybody can be given arguido status or perhaps OG is trying to dilute the status by 'promoting' there were umpteen arguidos not just the Mc's.

aiyoyo wrote:

Joss wrote:I am wondering about these people that are being called "suspects/arguidos". That is implying that they are saying they have evidence for involvement of someone disappearing a child in Portugal, otherwise why would they call them suspects? They can't just do that on a whim can they, as that is a pretty strong accusation to make. 

Arguido has the right to remain silent (notorious example St. Kate refusal to answer the 48 Q).  I believe it has got to do how (or if) their answer or silence can or cannot be used against them in a Court of law.

 Equivalent to UK "right to remain silent" - to protect a person during criminal proceedings from self incriminating answer coerced out of them under pressure/duress in the absence of legal representation and/or to protect them from adverse consequence of remaining silent.  

It's privilege against "self incrimination" in a nutshell.

As to how the OG determines which person to be interviewed should be given or not given the arguido status is a mystery.  It must be evidence-based as a basis one would think.

I guess the police in Portugal do read someone their Miranda rights but only after they arrest someone far as i know, that can then ask for a lawyer to be present? Although the McCann's to my knowledge were never arrested, so no need for the right to remain silent or a lawyer. They were called "Arguido" by the PJ, but that fizzled out to nothing, and after 7+ years it still looks like the McC's case won't be going to any Trial anytime soon.
As for the rest of the BS, with all the different suspicious looking characters to be questioned its just all pissing in the wind, IMO, and i guess they have to justify the investigation and all that taxpayer money spent somehow.

WMD wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Montclair wrote:IMHO, SY is interviewing these people in order to eliminate them from their own inquiry, even though they had already been eliminated by PJ. It could be that SY want to prosecute in the UK and with the adversarial system in the British courts, they must not give the accused any possibility of raising reasonable doubt with other possible suspects.

I would go with that, that SY want to prosecute in UK. It would be a whole lot less complicating on proviso the Portuguese can be receptive to this.

Some, if not all, of the people the MET Police want to interview were already covered and eliminated by the PJ.  The interest to re-interview them may be to go more in depth to find out what they saw or heard vs the PJ preliminary round of interviews aimed at elimination rather than info gathering.  All IMO.

How can anyone be prosecuted for a crime committed in another country?

How possibly can there be a 'fair trial' in England? Who has never heard of the Madeleine case? Who doesn't have an opinion one way or the other about the Mcs? Impossible to find an unbiased jury therefore.

Rogue-a-Tory wrote wrote:
How possibly can there be a 'fair trial' in England? Who has never heard of the Madeleine case? Who doesn't have an opinion one way or the other about the Mcs? Impossible to find an unbiased jury therefore.

Of course almost everyone must have heard about Madeleine, but the vast majority know only what they've seen on TV or in the MSM - they will have no doubt of the McCanns' innocence. When the case brings up what is to them new evidence, their eyes will be opened. I don't think there'd be a problem over bias.

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

WMD wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Montclair wrote:IMHO, SY is interviewing these people in order to eliminate them from their own inquiry, even though they had already been eliminated by PJ. It could be that SY want to prosecute in the UK and with the adversarial system in the British courts, they must not give the accused any possibility of raising reasonable doubt with other possible suspects.

I would go with that, that SY want to prosecute in UK. It would be a whole lot less complicating on proviso the Portuguese can be receptive to this.

Some, if not all, of the people the MET Police want to interview were already covered and eliminated by the PJ.  The interest to re-interview them may be to go more in depth to find out what they saw or heard vs the PJ preliminary round of interviews aimed at elimination rather than info gathering.  All IMO.

How can anyone be prosecuted for a crime committed in another country?

How possibly can there be a 'fair trial' in England? Who has never heard of the Madeleine case? Who doesn't have an opinion one way or the other about the Mcs? Impossible to find an unbiased jury therefore.

It didn't stop them in the Casey Anthony case, a case that had worldwide attention. And the Jury was selected from Pinellas County approx. about an hour away from where CA lived. They said the same thing there about a fair trial as well. And also in the Trayvon Martin case, but they still went ahead with Jury selection in Florida and the ensuing Trial.

Is it also a possibilty that SY are just reinterviewing witnesses that Murat translated?

I have no opininons on why atm just a thought that crossed my mind.

espeland wrote:

Rogue-a-Tory wrote wrote:
How possibly can there be a 'fair trial' in England? Who has never heard of the Madeleine case? Who doesn't have an opinion one way or the other about the Mcs? Impossible to find an unbiased jury therefore.

Of course almost everyone must have heard about Madeleine, but the vast majority know only what they've seen on TV or in the MSM - they will have no doubt of the McCanns' innocence. When the case brings up what is to them new evidence, their eyes will be opened. I don't think there'd be a problem over bias.

Yes and not everyone in England follows the MM case closely,and others may only vaguely remember hearing about the case back when it first broke in MSM, so i don't think they would have too much of a problem with jury selection.
My personal view is this case will never go to any Trial though.

Joss wrote:

It didn't stop them in the Casey Anthony case, a case that had worldwide attention. And the Jury was selected from Pinellas County approx. about an hour away from where CA lived. They said the same thing there about a fair trial as well. And also in the Trayvon Martin case, but they still went ahead with Jury selection in Florida and the ensuing Trial.

There are a number of perhaps not so subtle differences between the British and US justice systems. Firstly, the defence lawyers in the case of Casey Anthony were able to select a jury of their choice, whereas in the UK  there is no preremptory juror challenge. In fact, names are pulled out of a hat and a defendant isn't even allowed the luxury of knowing a juror's occupation/profession. In other words, its a lottery where one one pays yer money and takes yer chance. Secondly, in the state of Florida anyway, there has to be a unanimous verdict in the case of murder indictments, whereas here majority verdicts of 10-2 are acceptable which means a defendant has to have at least three sensible jurors who don't consider their sole reason d'etre for serving is to perform a public duty to convict, however weak the Crown's evidence may be.

Then there are other deviations such as the prosecution not being able to draw adverse inferences from a defendant not giving evidence and remaining mute during police interrogations in the US, whereby this no longer applies in the UK since the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. It rarely pays dividends to give evidence in one's own defence, recent classical  examples being the cases of Max Clifford and Rolf Harris, as opposed to Stuart Hall who declined to give evidence on his own behalf and was subsequently acquitted of 19 out of 20 indictments. .Judges in their summations are resticted to giving legal instructions in the US, whereas here here they are permitted to summarise all the evidence and cast their own invariably prosecutorial opinions to influence juries. Hence the proverbial adage, 'The last word.'

 Of course it doesn't help a defendant's cause to be segregated behind glass enclosed docks whilst flanked by security guards, as opposed to sitting next to one's defence counsel on the lawyers bench. This practice also inhibits one from actually participating in one's defence. There is also the matter of previous convictions and similar evidence being admissable in the British justice system despite  it bearing no direct correlation to the matter one is being tried for with the prejudicial value far outweighing the probative value. Any counsel will tell you that juries will inevitably convict if they even get a sniff of one's previous convictions.

Despite all the above, American cases appear to be decided by the amount of handkerchiefs dispensed with and the largest river of tears shed by the opposing victims and accused relatives who are segregated like football fans within the confines of the courtroom

"The dogs have found cadavar and blood in the McCanns apartment, guv"

The gardner said, "That's me in the clear then, I only plant flowers, you muppet, not 'evidence'!

Mr Peabody wrote:Since the McCanns claim that there is no evidence against them it would seem anybody can be given arguido status or perhaps OG is trying to dilute the status by 'promoting' there were umpteen arguidos not just the Mc's.

Gerry fixates upon the word 'evidence', but does lack of evidence mean you are not guilty? Maybe I've watched too many cop dramas, but the way he does this, with that sneer reminds me of the cocky crook from the TV who knows the police can't hold him because they have no evidence. Not indignance or horror that the have been accused, just arrogance. In my opinion.

Realist wrote:

Joss wrote:

It didn't stop them in the Casey Anthony case, a case that had worldwide attention. And the Jury was selected from Pinellas County approx. about an hour away from where CA lived. They said the same thing there about a fair trial as well. And also in the Trayvon Martin case, but they still went ahead with Jury selection in Florida and the ensuing Trial.

There are a number of perhaps not so subtle differences between the British and US justice systems. Firstly, the defence lawyers in the case of Casey Anthony were able to select a jury of their choice, whereas in the UK  there is no preremptory juror challenge. In fact, names are pulled out of a hat and a defendant isn't even allowed the luxury of knowing a juror's occupation/profession. In other words, its a lottery where one one pays yer money and takes yer chance. Secondly, in the state of Florida anyway, there has to be a unanimous verdict in the case of murder indictments, whereas here majority verdicts of 10-2 are acceptable which means a defendant has to have at least three sensible jurors who don't consider their sole reason d'etre for serving is to perform a public duty to convict, however weak the Crown's evidence may be.

Then there are other deviations such as the prosecution not being able to draw adverse inferences from a defendant not giving evidence and remaining mute during police interrogations in the US, whereby this no longer applies in the UK since the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. It rarely pays dividends to give evidence in one's own defence, recent classical  examples being the cases of Max Clifford and Rolf Harris, as opposed to Stuart Hall who declined to give evidence on his own behalf and was subsequently acquitted of 19 out of 20 indictments. .Judges in their summations are resticted to giving legal instructions in the US, whereas here here they are permitted to summarise all the evidence and cast their own invariably prosecutorial opinions to influence juries. Hence the proverbial adage, 'The last word.'

 Of course it doesn't help a defendant's cause to be segregated behind glass enclosed docks whilst flanked by security guards, as opposed to sitting next to one's defence counsel on the lawyers bench. This practice also inhibits one from actually participating in one's defence. There is also the matter of previous convictions and similar evidence being admissable in the British justice system despite  it bearing no direct correlation to the matter one is being tried for with the prejudicial value far outweighing the probative value. Any counsel will tell you that juries will inevitably convict if they even get a sniff of one's previous convictions.

Despite all the above, American cases appear to be decided by the amount of handkerchiefs dispensed with and the largest river of tears shed by the opposing victims and accused relatives who are segregated like football fans within the confines of the courtroom

I definitely think that relatives of a murder victim in the Court would be shedding tears when discussing details of the crime, with at times graphic details.
Thanks for your clarification of the differences between the U.S. & U.K systems.

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

WMD wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Montclair wrote:IMHO, SY is interviewing these people in order to eliminate them from their own inquiry, even though they had already been eliminated by PJ. It could be that SY want to prosecute in the UK and with the adversarial system in the British courts, they must not give the accused any possibility of raising reasonable doubt with other possible suspects.

I would go with that, that SY want to prosecute in UK. It would be a whole lot less complicating on proviso the Portuguese can be receptive to this.

Some, if not all, of the people the MET Police want to interview were already covered and eliminated by the PJ.  The interest to re-interview them may be to go more in depth to find out what they saw or heard vs the PJ preliminary round of interviews aimed at elimination rather than info gathering.  All IMO.

How can anyone be prosecuted for a crime committed in another country?

How possibly can there be a 'fair trial' in England? Who has never heard of the Madeleine case? Who doesn't have an opinion one way or the other about the Mcs? Impossible to find an unbiased jury therefore.

IMHO that's what the high profile awareness  wider agenda has all been about - their lawyers will play this card should it ever be needed

MRNOODLES wrote:Is it also a possibilty that SY are just reinterviewing witnesses that Murat translated?  

I have no opininons on why atm just a thought that crossed my mind.  

I have been wondering the validity of Murat's translations myself recently.

It would seem perhaps they are not as legally acceptable as they might at first appear :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(snipped from gazetadigitalarquivo.blogspot.co.nz)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Almost 300,000 likes.

NickE.
Not a facebooker so don't know, but is there any way we can get some of those 300k 'likes' or 31k 'commentors' on board with the petition? Does someone need to ask Deano to post again with a link?

...............................................................


Reading the ‘Dewani’ thread with one of the witnesses having died, brought to mind the ‘Memory for the Future’ evidence that was going to be taken:
 
Monday 14^th May 2007
 
This week, starting today, the group are set to appear in court behind closed doors to record their evidence for any future trial before they go back to the UK. The procedure, known as "memory for the future", is similar to a mock trial in which the friends would give evidence as witnesses now against a future defendant.
 
Local lawyer Artur Rego said the procedure was used only in exceptional cases such as this where a large group of witnesses are foreign. He said: "It is recorded by video and kept sealed, then released during the hearing. If somebody is ever charged then this statement can then be unsealed and disclosed for the judge who is going to hear the case. It has the same value as witness statements delivered live in the trial."
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
Does anyone know whether this ever actually came about and whether the T7 were actually cross-examined behind closed doors on camera?

Doug D wrote:
 
Monday 14^th May 2007
 
This week, starting today, the group are set to appear in court behind closed doors to record their evidence for any future trial before they go back to the UK. The procedure, known as "memory for the future", is similar to a mock trial in which the friends would give evidence as witnesses now against a future defendant.
 
Local lawyer Artur Rego said the procedure was used only in exceptional cases such as this where a large group of witnesses are foreign. He said: "It is recorded by video and kept sealed, then released during the hearing. If somebody is ever charged then this statement can then be unsealed and disclosed for the judge who is going to hear the case. It has the same value as witness statements delivered live in the trial."
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
Does anyone know whether this ever actually came about and whether the T7 were actually cross-examined behind closed doors on camera?

@Doug, Good question!

Does anyone know if the T7 were actually cross-examined behind closed doors on camera?

Joss wrote:
I definitely think that relatives of a murder victim in the Court would be shedding tears when discussing details of the crime, with at times graphic details.
Thanks for your clarification of the differences between the U.S. & U.K systems.

Thanks for acknowledging my reply to your posting vis a vis the Casey Anthony trial and juror selection in the US. Although the highly prejudicial British justice system is weighed heavily in favour of the prosecution which perhaps not unnaturaly culminates in an over 80% conviction success rate, the US justice system also has its downside. There is a school of thought that would subscribe to a defendant tried by a judge being a better option for the aforementioned than a jury. At least a judge has to give legal reasons for the basis of his judgement, whereas a jury don't and one cannot appeal against a jury's decision, no matter how perverse it may be.

One of the flaws in the American justice system is trial by media which is not permitted here, reporting is strictly confined to actual courtroom evidence with no so called pundits airing their views before or during legal proceedings. Also prosecutors are not reliant on re-election here in the UK, one day a counsel could be defending, the next prosecuting. The American police are also able to abuse the Miranda caution by interviewing suspects as witnesses before reading them their rights, these interviews subsequently being admissable as evidence. Here, as soon as a person becomes a suspect, they have to be cautioned and subjected to an IUC(Interview under caution) whereby a legal rep. has to be present unless this right is waived.

What I can categorically state is that the McCanns were extremely fortunate that they were vacating in Portugal when the incident involving the disappearance of their daughter occurred, as opposed to the the US. Had they in fact been in the good ole US of A, land of the free an' all that stuff, they most definitely wouldn't have been walking around setting up donation foundations and languishing on chat shows, au contraire, they would have been incarcerated for at the very least lying to the authorities, child neglect and manslaughter charges. You may remember Casey Anthony was already in custody for similar offences prior to her daughter's corpse being discovered.

Realist wrote:

Joss wrote:
I definitely think that relatives of a murder victim in the Court would be shedding tears when discussing details of the crime, with at times graphic details.
Thanks for your clarification of the differences between the U.S. & U.K systems.

Thanks for acknowledging my reply to your posting vis a vis the Casey Anthony trial and juror selection in the US. Although the highly prejudicial British justice system is weighed heavily in favour of the prosecution which perhaps not unnaturaly culminates in an over 80% conviction success rate, the US justice system also has its downside. There is a school of thought that would subscribe to a defendant tried by a judge being a better option for the aforementioned than a jury. At least a judge has to give legal reasons for the basis of his judgement, whereas a jury don't and one cannot appeal against a jury's decision, no matter how perverse it may be.

One of the flaws in the American justice system is trial by media which is not permitted here, reporting is strictly confined to actual courtroom evidence with no so called pundits airing their views before or during legal proceedings. Also prosecutors are not reliant on re-election here in the UK, one day a counsel could be defending, the next prosecuting. The American police are also able to abuse the Miranda caution by interviewing suspects as witnesses before reading them their rights, these interviews subsequently being admissable as evidence. Here, as soon as a person becomes a suspect, they have to be cautioned and subjected to an IUC(Interview under caution) whereby a legal rep. has to be present unless this right is waived.

What I can categorically state is that the McCanns were extremely fortunate that they were vacating in Portugal when the incident involving the disappearance of their daughter occurred, as opposed to the the US. Had they in fact been in the good ole US of A, land of the free an' all that stuff, they most definitely wouldn't have been walking around setting up donation foundations and languishing on chat shows, au contraire, they would have been incarcerated for at the very least lying to the authorities, child neglect and manslaughter charges. You may remember Casey Anthony was already in custody for similar offences prior to her daughter's corpse being discovered.

You're welcome. I know well the Justice system in the U.S., and it normally entails dirty tricks by the Defense, but it is what it is i guess.
And having followed both the C.A. & Trayvon Martin case from start to finish, most definitely trial by media, and the internet was abuzz with forums on both cases, of which these cases are still being discussed, especially some of the more recent antics of G. Zimmerman.
Couldn't believe Florida juries IMO got it wrong both times, and it did bring home the fact of how inept the Jury system is in the U.S. As they say its a crap shoot.
As to my bolded portion in your post, i agree the McCann's would most certainly have been incarcerated if Madeleine had of gone missing there, and this case would have already been through a Trial i would think.

Joss wrote:

You're welcome. I know well the Justice system in the U.S., and it normally entails dirty tricks by the Defense, but it is what it is i guess.

I don't know about 'dirty tricks' by the defence, but US prosecutors certainly aren't averse to utilising them. Take for instance the Russ Faria case [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] where the judge suppressed evidence and denied defence counsel the right to cross examine a prosecution witness upon whose exidence the state heavily relied upon.

Why, even here in the Peoples' Republik of Britain, such a travesty of justice would not be permitted.

There is another post from Mr. Boroczky dated 06th October
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A large number of comments again, both pro and anti McCann. I find it interesting to read what people who are not following the case closely think about it. Sometimes I think the general public don't care about this case anymore beyond the unfairness of spending all that money on one missing child case, but actually people still have very strong opinions either way.

I hope something useful will come out of this new round of police interviews, I'm particularly interested in them wanting to compare the suspects DNA with samples from the resort, but which samples are we talking about here

Realist wrote:

Joss wrote:

You're welcome. I know well the Justice system in the U.S., and it normally entails dirty tricks by the Defense, but it is what it is i guess.

I don't know about 'dirty tricks' by the defence, but US prosecutors certainly aren't averse to utilising them. Take for instance the Russ Faria case [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] where the judge suppressed evidence and denied defence counsel the right to cross examine a prosecution witness upon whose exidence the state heavily relied upon.

Why, even here in the Peoples' Republik of Britain, such a travesty of justice would not be permitted.

Oh you don't remember Jose Baez and what he said accusing George Anthony of sexually molesting Casey in the am. before she went to school, and i won't repeat what he actually said about that, or Mark O'Mara bringing forth a slab of concrete and cardboard cutouts resembling Trayvon Martin and G. Zimmerman to point out to the jurors the size differences between them both etc., plus numerous other tricks up their sleeves. Those two Trials were a joke and blatant lies to con the jurors with, and it worked too, both C.A. & G.Z. were acquitted of murder.
I have not heard of the other case you mention or followed it.

Realist wrote:

Joss wrote:

You're welcome. I know well the Justice system in the U.S., and it normally entails dirty tricks by the Defense, but it is what it is i guess.

I don't know about 'dirty tricks' by the defence, but US prosecutors certainly aren't averse to utilising them. Take for instance the Russ Faria case [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] where the judge suppressed evidence and denied defence counsel the right to cross examine a prosecution witness upon whose exidence the state heavily relied upon.

Why, even here in the Peoples' Republik of Britain, such a travesty of justice would not be permitted.

One of the most messed up American cases I've read about and watched is the West Memphis 3 case. The (Ab)use of the Alford Pleas to protect the state...

It ruins your year watching the Paradise Lost documentaries on Youtube.

Joss wrote:
Oh you don't remember Jose Baez and what he said accusing George Anthony of sexually molesting Casey in the am. before she went to school, and i won't repeat what he actually said about that, or Mark O'Mara bringing forth a slab of concrete and cardboard cutouts resembling Trayvon Martin and G. Zimmerman to point out to the jurors the size differences between them both etc., plus numerous other tricks up their sleeves. Those two Trials were a joke and blatant lies to con the jurors with, and it worked too, both C.A. & G.Z. were acquitted of murder.
I have not heard of the other case you mention or followed it.

I didn't follow the Zimmerman case, Joss, wasn't he some kind of wannabe Charles Bronson vigilante type character? I did think it untoward that the judge allowed the defence to cast aspersions on George Casey's character during his opening speech, particularly in the vein that he was never cross examined on the aforementioned. That would never have been allowed in the UK, not least because defence counsels are not permitted to make opening speeches on behalf of their clients, that is a privilige solely reserved for the prosecuting counsel. Yet another disadvantage of a defendant in the British trial by jury charades that are played out on a daily basis.

If I recall correctly, defence counsel wasn't allowed to mention these accusations in his final summations because he hadn't questioned him relating to them when cross examining. I can't remember if the prosecutor put these matters to him upon direct examination. In any event, it was clearly a fishing expedition that as previously stated, would never be admissable here. Whether or not it was a deliberate ploy to help his daughter, George came across as a very dodgy witness, not least for keeping a gun in the house, knowing that it would violate his daughter's bail conditions.

At the end of the day, Casey Anthony was over charged and she was very fortunate to have a jury who held the state to its full burden of proof committment which they failed miserably to attain. A very rare commodity in juries, both here and in the US, where the norm is that to be acquitted, a defendant has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they are innocent, unless of course they happen to be one of the media's celebrity products, but even that isn't a slam dunk anymore, particularly if they are well past their sell by date in a state that has no Double Jeopardy safeguards or statute of limitations.

NB, Yet another pitfall in the American justice system appears to be the regular use of 'jailhouse confessions,' whereby an accused person appears to have felt the need to express guilt to a fellow inmate, despite protesting his or her innocence to the police and courts. This practice of using fellow inmates to supply such evidence with the promise of a reduction in charges or sentence is generally frowned upon in the UK and when utilised, is grounds for appeal. I believe this was a tactic adopted by the prosecution in the Casey Anthony case.

Realist wrote:

Joss wrote:
Oh you don't remember Jose Baez and what he said accusing George Anthony of sexually molesting Casey in the am. before she went to school, and i won't repeat what he actually said about that, or Mark O'Mara bringing forth a slab of concrete and cardboard cutouts resembling Trayvon Martin and G. Zimmerman to point out to the jurors the size differences between them both etc., plus numerous other tricks up their sleeves. Those two Trials were a joke and blatant lies to con the jurors with, and it worked too, both C.A. & G.Z. were acquitted of murder.
I have not heard of the other case you mention or followed it.

I didn't follow the Zimmerman case, Joss, wasn't he some kind of wannabe Charles Bronson vigilante type character? I did think it untoward that the judge allowed the defence to cast aspersions on George Casey's character during his opening speech, particularly in the vein that he was never cross examined on the aforementioned. That would never have been allowed in the UK, not least because defence counsels are not permitted to make opening speeches on behalf of their clients, that is a privilige solely reserved for the prosecuting counsel. Yet another disadvantage of a defendant in the British trial by jury charades that are played out on a daily basis.
< snip >

It is not corrrect to say "That would never have been allowed in the UK, not least because defence counsels are not permitted to make opening speeches on behalf of their clients, that is a privilige solely reserved for the prosecuting counsel", Realist.

In cases where evidence beyond that of the defendant(s) alone is called the defence has the right to make an opening speech and although there have been, and there will no doubt continue to be, departures from the norm it remains customary for any such speech to be made after the prosecution has concluded its case.

ultimaThule wrote:

In cases where evidence beyond that of the defendant(s) alone is called the defence has the right to make an opening speech and although there have been, and there will no doubt continue to be, departures from the norm it remains customary for any such speech to be made after the prosecution has concluded its case.

.
Can you cite a case in the UK in recent times where the defence counsel has been granted the privilige of making an opening speech as opposed to statement on behalf of the defendant? If there are any, they would be a rare commodity indeed, I've never heard of any. I'm not stating that it has never occurred and there may well be the odd special circumstances case, but as you so rightly state, it isn't the norm. What is the norm would be for a judge to admonish counsel for attempting to make such a speech with a sharp reminder for him/her to save it for closing arguments.

If indeed opening speeches by defence counsel were permissable in UK courts, can you think of any logical reason why the aforementioned would consistently choose to fail to take advantage of this legal right?

Realist wrote:

Joss wrote:
Oh you don't remember Jose Baez and what he said accusing George Anthony of sexually molesting Casey in the am. before she went to school, and i won't repeat what he actually said about that, or Mark O'Mara bringing forth a slab of concrete and cardboard cutouts resembling Trayvon Martin and G. Zimmerman to point out to the jurors the size differences between them both etc., plus numerous other tricks up their sleeves. Those two Trials were a joke and blatant lies to con the jurors with, and it worked too, both C.A. & G.Z. were acquitted of murder.
I have not heard of the other case you mention or followed it.

I didn't follow the Zimmerman case, Joss, wasn't he some kind of wannabe Charles Bronson vigilante type character? I did think it untoward that the judge allowed the defence to cast aspersions on George Casey's character during his opening speech, particularly in the vein that he was never cross examined on the aforementioned. That would never have been allowed in the UK, not least because defence counsels are not permitted to make opening speeches on behalf of their clients, that is a privilige solely reserved for the prosecuting counsel. Yet another disadvantage of a defendant in the British trial by jury charades that are played out on a daily basis.

If I recall correctly, defence counsel wasn't allowed to mention these accusations in his final summations because he hadn't questioned him relating to them when cross examining. I can't remember if the prosecutor put these matters to him upon direct examination. In any event, it was clearly a fishing expedition that as previously stated, would never be admissable here. Whether or not it was a deliberate ploy to help his daughter, George came across as a very dodgy witness, not least for keeping a gun in the house, knowing that it would violate his daughter's bail conditions.

At the end of the day, Casey Anthony was over charged and she was very fortunate to have a jury who held the state to its full burden of proof committment which they failed miserably to attain. A very rare commodity in juries, both here and in the US, where the norm is that to be acquitted, a defendant has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they are innocent, unless of course they happen to be one of the media's celebrity products, but even that isn't a slam dunk anymore, particularly if they are well past their sell by date in a state that has no Double Jeopardy safeguards or statute of limitations.

NB, Yet another pitfall in the American justice system appears to be the regular use of 'jailhouse confessions,' whereby an accused person appears to have felt the need to express guilt to a fellow inmate, despite protesting his or her innocence to the police and courts. This practice of using fellow inmates to supply such evidence with the promise of a reduction in charges or sentence is generally frowned upon in the UK and when utilised, is grounds for appeal. I believe this was a tactic adopted by the prosecution in the Casey Anthony case.

I followed the live stream of both those Trials, and in the Trials in the U.S. both the Prosecution & Defense teams do their opening and closing statements.
In the CA trial there was plenty of incriminating evidence against her, and as the ME Dr. Garavaglia stated about no child should ever have had duct tape around its face. So i don't think they overcharged CA, and there were lesser charges the jurors could have chosen, but they obviously didn't understand what it was that was required of them as jurors.
I also don't believe George & Cindy Anthony should of been allowed to sit in on the trial, but only allowed in the courtroom as witnesses. I think they did their utmost to get their daughter off the death penalty charge and played along with the script.
Anyway better not get too much into all of that as it is off topic, but thanks for explaining a bit about the U.K. system.

Realist wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

In cases where evidence beyond that of the defendant(s) alone is called the defence has the right to make an opening speech and although there have been, and there will no doubt continue to be, departures from the norm it remains customary for any such speech to be made after the prosecution has concluded its case.

.
Can you cite a case in the UK in recent times where the defence counsel has been granted the privilige of making an opening speech as opposed to statement on behalf of the defendant? If there are any, they would be a rare commodity indeed, I've never heard of any. I'm not stating that it has never occurred and there may well be the odd special circumstances case, but as you so rightly state, it isn't the norm. What is the norm would be for a judge to admonish counsel for attempting to make such a speech with a sharp reminder for him/her to save it for closing arguments.

If indeed opening speeches by defence counsel were permissable in UK courts, can you think of any logical reason why the aforementioned would consistently choose to fail to take advantage of this legal right?

In the 2011 trial of Lord Taylor of Warwick, a Tory peer who fiddled his expenses, the defence made its opening speech immediately following that of the prosecution which may not have been the best tactic as he was sentenced to a year's imprisonment although, unsurprisingly, there's no mention of this episode on his website, nor of the fact that he's been banned for life from the legal profession.    

If defence counsel wishes to make an opening speech immediately following that of the prosecution it's highly unlikely a judge would object to a change in the more usual order of the proceedings and, where a trial is expected to be of lengthy duration, it could be considered prudent or beneficial for the defence to state their case early. .  

Otherwise, the defence customarily makes their opening speech after the prosecution has concluded its case. Opening speeches are, of course, entirely separate from and not to be confused with the closing arguments which are made after both sides have finished calling witnesses, submitting documents, etc.

The USA's justice system is not dissimilar to that of the UK from which it largely derives; both are based on common law and are adversarial as opposed to inquisitorial.  However, grand juries have been eliminated in the UK and its prosecutors can amend an indictment after a case has been committed. In the US any such alteration would violate the Fifth Amendment and require the case to be resubmitted to a grand jury. .

ultimaThule wrote:

Realist wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

In cases where evidence beyond that of the defendant(s) alone is called the defence has the right to make an opening speech and although there have been, and there will no doubt continue to be, departures from the norm it remains customary for any such speech to be made after the prosecution has concluded its case.

.
Can you cite a case in the UK in recent times where the defence counsel has been granted the privilige of making an opening speech as opposed to statement on behalf of the defendant? If there are any, they would be a rare commodity indeed, I've never heard of any. I'm not stating that it has never occurred and there may well be the odd special circumstances case, but as you so rightly state, it isn't the norm. What is the norm would be for a judge to admonish counsel for attempting to make such a speech with a sharp reminder for him/her to save it for closing arguments.

If indeed opening speeches by defence counsel were permissable in UK courts, can you think of any logical reason why the aforementioned would consistently choose to fail to take advantage of this legal right?

In the 2011 trial of Lord Taylor of Warwick, a Tory peer who fiddled his expenses, the defence made its opening speech immediately following that of the prosecution which may not have been the best tactic as he was sentenced to a year's imprisonment although, unsurprisingly, there's no mention of this episode on his website, nor of the fact that he's been banned for life from the legal profession.    

If defence counsel wishes to make an opening speech immediately following that of the prosecution it's highly unlikely a judge would object to a change in the more usual order of the proceedings and, where a trial is expected to be of lengthy duration, it could be considered prudent or beneficial for the defence to state their case early. .  

Otherwise, the defence customarily makes their opening speech after the prosecution has concluded its case. Opening speeches are, of course, entirely separate from and not to be confused with the closing arguments which are made after both sides have finished calling witnesses, submitting documents, etc.

The USA's justice system is not dissimilar to that of the UK from which it largely derives; both are based on common law and are adversarial as opposed to inquisitorial.  However, grand juries have been eliminated in the UK and its prosecutors can amend an indictment after a case has been committed. In the US any such alteration would violate the Fifth Amendment and require the case to be resubmitted to a grand jury. .

When were there grand juries in the UK and when were they eliminated?

For information:

"The grand jury's functions were gradually made redundant by the development of committal proceedings in magistrates courts from 1848 onward when the (three) Jervis Acts,[7] such as the Justices Protection Act 1848, codified and greatly expanded the functions of magistrates in pre-trial proceedings; these proceedings developed into almost a repeat of the trial itself. The grand jury ceased in 1933 to function in England with the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933[8] and was entirely abolished in 1948, when a clause from 1933 saving grand juries for offences relating to officials abroad was repealed by the Criminal Justice Act 1948.".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

ultimaThule wrote:For information:

"The grand jury's functions were gradually made redundant by the development of committal proceedings in magistrates courts from 1848 onward when the (three) Jervis Acts,[7] such as the Justices Protection Act 1848, codified and greatly expanded the functions of magistrates in pre-trial proceedings; these proceedings developed into almost a repeat of the trial itself. The grand jury ceased in 1933 to function in England with the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933[8] and was entirely abolished in 1948, when a clause from 1933 saving grand juries for offences relating to officials abroad was repealed by the Criminal Justice Act 1948.".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thank you ultimaThule.

I wonder if you can correlate the legal position between Portugal and UK as it seems we're all now European partners, in relation to the case of Madeleine paying particular respect to the status of arguido.