DM's Jury Duty

[ << previous | index | next >> ]

For obvious reasons, the following diary contains no names. It also contains no specific dates or places.

Day 25

Crown's Summing Up and Argument, Continued

Crown continued deconstructing Accused A's police statement. Crown indicated that other parts of the statement seemed to be deliberately set up to establish "facts" that could be used to support an alibi, but that these also turned out to be lies.

Accused A stated that Deceased had "disappeared" for three months from November 1999 to December 2000, later turning out to have gone "surfing" down the south coast. Crown then mentioned the photo of Deceased and his girlfriend, which had been presented to her during her examination, stating that it was taken on New Year's Eve, 1999, at a town on the north coast. So, Crown concluded, this was also a lie.
Accused A mentioned in his statement that Deceased's Former Business Partners didn't like him, and might have wanted to harm him. Crown indicated evidence given by the Former Business Partners that they did not harbour ill feelings towards Deceased, concluding that this was another lie by Accused A.

Crown said that the Crown didn't need to establish a motive for murder, but that one could be gleaned anyway, from the evidence concerning how Accused A ran Security Company, attempting to hide profits from Deceased, and the existence of the lucrative contract which he might not have wanted to share.

Crown turned to Accused B, indicating evidence that pointed at his involvement with the murder:

The fingerprint of Accused B on the street directory in Deceased's car.
The purchase of drinks for two people and cigarettes in the two brands smoked by Accused A and B by Accused A at 21:25 on the evening Deceased disappeared.
Accused A using Accused B's phone from the region of the river where the body was found.
A "special relationship" between Accused A and B, based on special treatment of Accused B by Accused A.
Evidence that after the event, Witness 32 heard Accused B say that Accused A "owed him big time".

Crown concluded by making an analogy of the case against the accused as a cable, with each piece of evidence being a strand, together making the strength of the cable. Even if one or a few strands were weak, or broken, enough remained that the cable was still strong. Crown listed 40 separate circumstances which together made up this cable - either established facts, or clear inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. And that, Crown concluded, was why we must find both accused guilty.

Defence for Accused A's Summing Up and Argument

Defence began his summing up late in the day, and addressed only two points before we went home for the day.

[ << previous | index | next >> ]