| For obvious reasons, the following diary contains no names. It also contains no specific dates or places. |
About this time we realised we would soon run out of board space, and most people wanted the points that were on the board left there. We asked a court officer if we could have something else to write on, ideally another whiteboard, or perhaps an easel with large paper sheets, or even just sheets of paper and blu-tac to stick it to the walls.
We also continued adding points to the case for Accused A's guilt. One point raised was Accused A lying in his police statement about having dinner with Deceased at Restaurant. Most people were happy to have that listed as a fact on the board. Juror A said, "Hang on, have we established that as a fact?" Juror K said he didn't think that was established. Juror A suggested we go through a detailed analysis of the evidence and see if we could reach a consensus on whether Accused A lied about being at the Restaurant, as both an important point to be established if we could, and a run-through of the exercise we would have to take with the case as a whole to try to reach a verdict. In effect, this one point would be a microcosm of the case and the discussions we would undertake to come to our final conclusions.
So on a separate part of the board, we wrote up the competing evidence for and against Accused A actually having eaten at the Restaurant with Deceased. We came up with 6 or 7 points against and only 3 for. Then we went around the table again, letting each juror have their say uninterrupted on what they thought of the evidence and what conclusion they reached from it. In some cases, a juror would mention another piece of evidence that we'd overlooked up to that point, and it would also go on the board. By the time we had completed the circuit, Juror K was still unconvinced. He spoke for a while about how he could not so easily dismiss the possible sighting of a tall man with blond hair at the Restaurant by the workers there, and some of the subsequent evidence of a possible sighting of Deceased at the petrol station by Witness 47. He needed to be convinced that these were mistaken.
We agreed to leave the point of the Restaurant for a while, and go to the next fact on the list, which was also in contention: That Deceased was found wearing the same clothes that he had been wearing on the day he disappeared. Juror K was completely unconvinced of this. About now the requested extra whiteboard arrived - a portable one on a stand. So as Jurors D and G went through the folders containing the transcipts and located evidence given by Witnesses 4 (Deceased's mother), 23 (the friend who'd been the last person to see Deceased before he went to Business Premises), Accused A as given in his statement, and 44 and 45 (the Restaurant workers). I wrote the descriptions of the clothing worn by Deceased (or the tall man which might have been him, in the cases of Witnesses 44 and 45) as given by the witnesses on the new board:
One point that came out of this investigation was that Accused A was the only person to have described Deceased as wearing a beanie. Nobody had noticed this before - in fact several jurors had thought that Witness 4 also said he was wearing a beanie, but a thorough reading of her evidence showed she had not. We recalled the evidence of Witness 42, who said he saw Deceased arrive at Business Premises, with his "shiny blond hair" - clearly not wearing a beanie at the time. So, several jurors concluded, this was another fact pointing the finger of suspicion at Accused A - since we knew Deceased was wearing a beanie when shot, and the only person to have described him as wearing one was Accused A.
We went around the table again, each giving our views on the consistency or otherwise of these descriptions, and voicing our conclusions on what the evidence of the clothing meant. Juror K began by stating that he thought it was possible that Deceased changed out of his jumper and put on a business shirt and tie for his meeting with Accused A - after all, it was supposed to be a business meeting. If so, then after the meeting he could have changed back into the clothes he was wearing earlier in the day, then been killed somewhere by someone else. The yellow dotted tie, Juror K maintained, could be the tie we could see in the photo of the boot of Deceased's car, showing a pile of clothes including a blue tie with diagonal pinstripes and yellow emblems. Juror K also pointed out the fact that there were so many clothes in the car meant it was possible Deceased could change a few times during the day.
The rest of us considered this scenario very unlikely. It was a winter's day, and we thought it unlikely that a person would change out of a jumper and switch to a green army jacket for a business meeting. Some jurors also said that a tall man with short blond hair, as in the descriptions of Witness 44 and 45, wearing a green army jacket was a fairly common sight and it could easily have been someone else. Going back to the previous fact in dispute, the testimonies of Witnesses 44 and 45 were consistent in describing only one tall man who ate a pizza quickly, not two tall men who lingered over a meeting. So even if the man they saw was Deceased, it still seemed that Accused A had lied about having had dinner with Deceased at the Restaurant.
For a while here I found myself agreeing with Juror K that this could possibly have been Deceased at the Restaurant. Witnesses 44 and 45 gave the time of this sighting as around 7:30pm, the time we know Deceased was at Business Premises with Accused A and B because of evidence given by Witnesses 34 and 42. Jurors had been assuming that if this was Deceased at the Restaurant, the time must have been somewhat later, but I thought what if Deceased had changed his clothes at Witness 23's place, into a business shirt and tie, and gone to Business Premises via the Restaurant for a quick bite to eat. That was possible... maybe.
After floating this idea, we continued discussing other points of evidence that had a bearing on this point. Jurors said they believed Deceased's mother got the clothing description pretty accurate, as would be expected from a mother. Witness 23's description was almost right, but as might be expected from a male friend, not completely accurate. The description of Accused A was also consistent, as far as it went, except for the errant mention of a beanie that matched what Deceased was wearing when killed. Jurors argued the evidence of the yellow dotted tie, saying that the tie in the photo with the yellow crests on it was clearly not "dotted" - everyone knows what dots look like. A tie with yellow dots could be expected to be unusual and eye-catching, whereas the tie in the photo looked like a very ordinary club tie - not something that would particularly catch the eye or provoke a comment later on at all. And the green army jacket seemed completely at odds with what Deceased was wearing.
Then we went to the transcript and read the testimony of Witnesses 44 and 45. When shown the photo of Deceased, Witness 44 said that was "absolutely not" the person he had seen in the Restaurant. He described him as "completely different, different face, different build, all different". Witness 45 had also said initially that the photo was not the same man he saw. It was only under cross-examination by Defence that he relented, after repeated questioning, that maybe it was the same man, maybe it wasn't. We read out the transcript of the cross-examination, and it seemed quite clear than Defence was badgering the witness somewhat to get the admission that he wasn't 100% sure it wasn't the same man as in the photo. Up to now we had all been remembering Witness 45's words, "maybe yes, maybe no", without recalling that Witness 44 had unequivocally said it wasn't the same man and stood by that under cross-examination. So this refreshing of the evidence in our minds brought a new perspective, and by the time we were done with this, even Juror K was satisfied that neither Accused A nor Deceased had visited the Restaurant that night.
We were getting a bit exhausted after all this, and it was now about lunch time. We paused for lunch, deciding not to discuss the case while we ate. A court officer came in and let us out into the garden outside for a while to get some fresh air.
After lunch, we felt as though we'd really gotten somewhere, so we decided to have another vote.
Vote 3I suggested that we ask the person who voted Not Guilty for Accused A to tell us why they still had doubts about his guilt. This would raise points for discussion, and we could go through those, and either raise the same doubts in other jurors or sway the one juror to the view that those doubts were "beyond reasonable doubt" and thus not enough to command a Not Guilty verdict.
Accused A: 10 Guilty, 1 Not Guilty, 0 Undecided.
Accused B: 0 Guilty, 10 Not Guilty, 1 Undecided.
Juror K admitted it was he who still had doubts and had voted Not Guilty. He said he had now been satisfied that Accused A and Deceased were never at the Restaurant, but he still had doubts over the identity of the chain and the D-shackles. He gave weight to Witness 38's first police statement, that he had cut the chain into three lengths when selling it to Accused A. If that was the case, then it couldn't be the same chain as found on the body. And the 5 D-shackles on the body were 4 fairly shiny ones, and one rusted one, clearly different. Juror K said he was not convinced that they would be the 5 new shackles bought by Accused A.
Before discussing this, we went to the transcript and read out almost all of Witness 38's evidence. We went through the section where he confirmed his first police statement, saying that he laid out the chain on the floor to measure it, then at the customer's direction to "cut it into three 5-metre lengths, thanks mate," he proceeded to cut it into three lengths. He said he laid out the first 5-metre length and cut it, then used that to measure out the next two lengths from the bin, and made two more cuts. Then the witness confirmed his second statement, made some 5 months later when police returned to ask him if he was sure about cutting the chain into three pieces. That statement said that about two weeks after giving his first statement, he thought about it and couldn't be sure if he cut it into two or three pieces, but that he didn't think it was important at all, so didn't contact the police. At the time he gave his second statement, he stood by that thought, that he wasn't sure if he cut the chain into two or three pieces. Then the transcript went on to Witness 38's description of the customer who bought the chain. Juror D, who was reading it out, asked if we needed to hear that, and several jurors said yes, it was important. So we heard that Witness 38 had described the customer as 6 feet tall, with short spiky hair that looked like it had just been washed, a brown beard, solid upper half, and a bit of a gut. On all counts, this did not accord with the physical description of Accused A.
Then we did the round-table thing again, with each juror explaining why they thought the D-shackles bought by Accused A were the ones found on the body. We got out the actual shackles from the evidence box, and also the additional shackle that was found on the back of Accused A's car. The extra shackle was shinier than any others, but the same size. Several jurors said that they believed the rusted shackle was originally on Accused A's car, and when he bought five new shackles to attach the chain to the body, he swapped the rusted one for a new one, so he could keep a shiny new shackle. The fact that the finish on the five shinier shackles was not the same was explained by Juror J, who said it was common in hardware stores to pick up a handful of items from a bin, buy them, and get home only to notice that they don't all match. Customers are always swapping items between bins accidentally, or the bin could have been restocked with new stock of a different batch and the two batches been mixed up. Juror F said that if she had five new shackles and a rusty one on her car, the natural thing to do would be to use the rusty one and keep a new one. Most of the rest of us agreed.
Then we did the same procedure for the chain. Some just said it was simply too much of a coincidence, and that Witness 38, although seeming to try his best at remembering, clearly had no recollection of the sale at all now, and was relying only on his old statements, which were somewhat contradictory. Add to that the fact that his description of who he sold the chain to was either totally wrong, or a description of someone else, and that threw further doubt on his ability to recall having made three cuts.
Someone mentioned that the two lengths of chain on the body were close to the length ratio that one would expect if it was laid out on the floor in three lengths, with one cut not made. The rest of us noted that this was important, as Witness 38 had described in detail how he laid the chain out prior to cutting it. While the last few jurors gave their cases for the chain being the same, Juror A went to the evidence box and got the chain out. With the help of Jurors H, J, and me, we laid out the shorter length along the floor. Then longer length next to it, folded at one end. The lengths matched to within a few centimetres. As the last juror finished giving her case for the chain on the body being the chain Accused A bought, we said, "Have a look at this." Everyone stood and those on the far side of the table walked around to look at the chain.
Juror K looked at it and nodded slowly. It was getting late in the day, so I said, "Juror K, it's up to you now. Do you want to discuss any other points, or go away to think about things a bit before we go any further?"
Juror K said, "No, I'm ready. Let's have another vote."
We thought this might be it. Everyone was hushed as we wrote our votes down and gave the slips of paper to Juror A for tallying. I stood at the whiteboard and drew tally marks as he opened and read them out.
"Accused A, guilty. Accused B, not guilty."
"Accused A, guilty. Accused B, not guilty."
"Accused A, guilty. Accused B, not guilty."
"Accused A, guilty. Accused B, not guilty."
"Accused A, guilty. Accused B, not guilty."
The tension in the room began to build noticeably. We weren't sure what Juror K had decided.
"Accused A, guilty. Accused B, not guilty."
"Accused A, guilty. Accused B, not guilty."
"Accused A, guilty. Accused B, not guilty."
It was getting close now. Had Juror K's vote already been read out, or was there still an Accused A not guilty to come?
"Accused A, guilty. Accused B, not guilty."
"Accused A, guilty. Accused B, not guilty."
"That's it!"
Immediately there was a clamour. "That's only ten!" Juror A looked up at the board and the tally marks, clearly showing 10 votes. Everyone else searched frantically, looking to see if they had dropped their vote accidentally. People turned up things on the table and looked everywhere.
"Here it is!" Juror A found a folded slip of paper under a paper plate in front of him. The rest of us nearly went apoplectic at the tension. We all watched with pulses racing as Juror A unfolded the paper and read.
"Accused A, guilty. Accused B, not guilty."
Vote 4
Accused A: 11 Guilty, 0 Not Guilty.
Accused B: 0 Guilty, 11 Not Guilty.
There was dead silence.
"Oh my." "We did it." The sense of relief washed over us. Juror K said that the final discussions on the shackles and chain had convinced him, and he was happy with his decision.
Before we did anything else, I said a thanks to Juror K for prompting us to go through those final discussions, as they had revealed to all of us additional facts and reasoning that helped us feel comfortable with our decision, and that would ultimately make us feel better about ourselves. I also thanked Juror A for doing a splendid job as foreman, which was greeted with a hearty round of applause.
We agreed that we needed a cup of tea/coffee and a chance to calm down a bit before we delivered our verdicts to the court. We rang the bell to call the court officer and told him we'd reached a verdict, but wanted half an hour for afternoon tea before we went into the court. He said that was fine, and he would arrange for the court to be ready for us when we chose.
We spent the time calming down, and speaking very little. We exchanged email addresses and said that we'd have to all get together for a dinner some time, and just have a good time without talking about the case. And then we had our refreshments quietly.
We all knew that possibly the hardest part was still to come.
The judge addressed us. "I understand you've reached your verdicts, ladies and gentlemen. I've asked to have you all excused from jury duty for the next two years. In a minute, my assistant will ask the foreman to stand and will ask for your verdicts, firstly for Accused A, and then for Accused B. She will ask, 'What say you, guilty or not guilty?' You will reply with your verdict. My assistant will then say, "So say you guilty (or not guilty), so say you all?' At this question, all members of the jury must nod or say 'yes', to indicate that you all agree to the decision.
I was looking at the judge throughout this. I wasn't sure if I was trying to avoid looking at anyone else, or just trying to absorb what was happening.
The judge's assistant stood and asked the foreman to stand. "Do you find Accused A guilty, or not guilty."
Juror A said, "Guilty." There was a gasp around the court.
"So say you guilty, so say you all?"
We all nodded and said yes.
"Do you find Accused B guilty, or not guilty."
Juror A said, "Not guilty." Another gasp.
"So say you not guilty, so say you all?"
We all nodded and said yes.
The judge then addressed us again, thanking us for our time, our attention, and our decisions. I took a quick glance around the court. Accused A was staring stonily down at the desk in front of him. Accused B was sitting back, relief clear on his face. Defence for Accused A was staring grimly at his papers. Accused A's mother was weeping inconsolably, her head hanging low, slumped right down on her lap - her partner was doing his best to comfort her. Deceased's girlfriend was crying in the arms of Deceased's mother.
That was enough; I turned back to the judge. He was saying that Accused B was now excused from the court. Accused A would need to stay. The judge thanked us again, and said we were discharged.
The court officer led us back to the jury room, and gave us leaflets with information about the free juror counselling service run by the sheriff's department. Juror B expressed her great displeasure at what the solicitor for Accused A and Accused A's (step)father had done when the verdicts were announced. She said that she looked at Accused A's stepfather and he had caught her eye and mouthed the words, "You're wrong!" at her. She said that Accused A's solicitor had shaken his head disapprovingly at her. She said she could almost excuse the (step)father, but that as a professional legal person, the solicitor's behaviour was inappropriate.
And then, we were released. We all shook hands and exchanged hugs. The court officer said we were one of the best juries he'd ever seen, in the way we all got along. He said he'd seen plenty of juries where the members yelled and screamed at each other. We said good bye to him, who we'd got to know fairly well over the past 6 weeks.
Then we left and went back to our lives.