1 1
obelixtim

Cilliers Trial UK.

Recommended Posts

MikeJD

*** Cilliers today on the stand.

Claiming that it is possible somebody else sabotaged the gear. Somehow, I don't think that one will fly with the jury.

Prosecution basically laughed in his face.....

...



Where are you getting that info?


Maybe here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-41886573
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parachute trial: Emile Cilliers 'lust-driven pantomime villain'

Emile Cilliers denies attempting to murder Victoria Cilliers on 5 April 2015
An Army sergeant accused of trying to murder his wife may be a "pantomime villain driven by lust" but he had no motive to kill, a jury has been told.

Former Army officer Victoria Cilliers suffered multiple injuries in 2015 when her parachute failed to open and she fell 4,000ft (1,200m).

Emile Cilliers is accused of tampering with the equipment to cause her death.

The court heard he was an "easy target" to the prosecution because he had been unfaithful to his wife.

In her closing statement at Winchester Crown Court, Mr Cilliers' defence barrister Elizabeth Marsh QC told the jury that the prosecution considered Cilliers a "vile human being" and treated him with "scorn, sarcasm and theatricality".
'No Prince Charming'
She asked jurors to remember he was "innocent until they were sure he was guilty".

Ms Marsh said: "Mr Cilliers is an easy target, no Prince Charming, if anything the pantomime villain, unfaithful, lying to each of the women in his life, as one assumes 'needs must' if you are conducting any sort of affair."
Emile Cilliers appearing in the defendants dock at Winchester Crown

Emile Cilliers is being represented by defence barrister Elizabeth Marsh QC
She added that his dishonesty during his affairs had been "driven by lust" but did not mean he was lying in his account of what happened to his wife.
"Do not characterise lies to fan the flames of lust as someway a motive for a murder," she said.
'Penniless scoundrel'

Ms Marsh also said that the suggested motive that he expected to receive his wife's estate if she died was "utterly rubbish".

She explained that the couple had a pre-nuptial agreement which excluded the "financially incontinent" and "penniless scoundrel" from inheriting from his wife.

Jurors were told Victoria Cilliers' survival was a "near miracle"

Ms Cilliers suffered multiple injuries when her hired parachute malfunctioned and the reserve failed as she plummeted 4,000ft to the ground at Netheravon Airfield, Wiltshire on 5 April 2015.
Jurors were told her survival was a "near miracle".

The defendant denies tampering with his wife's hire kit in a toilet cubicle at the Army Parachute Association.

The father-of-six also denies a second attempted murder charge relating to a gas leak at the family home in Amesbury, Wiltshire, and a third charge of damaging a gas valve, recklessly endangering life.

The trial continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jury retired on the 14th (last Tuesday) to consider their verdict, judge asked for a unanimous vote.

Since then, there has been nothing on the BBC website (maybe I've missed it) about a verdict, so assuming they are still out, they must be having difficulty deciding, so it appears it is not the open and shut case as everyone thought it would be.

Strange case......
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Generally, the jury will be asked for a unanimous verdict first but a majority verdict (11-1 or 10-2) will usually be accepted if no unanimous verdict can be reached.

In Scottish courts which operate under a different legal system to England and Wales there's also a third verdict available to the jury "Not Proven" which has been interpreted as "We the jury believe the accused to be guilty but the prosecution hasn't presented sufficient evidence for us to return a guilty verdict." The end result of the not proven verdict is still acquittal for the accused but it's not a not guilty verdict.
Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The end result of the not proven verdict is still acquittal for the accused but it's not a not guilty verdict.



If the jury can't reach a verdict, would that leave the option of a retrial?
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While a "not proven" verdict is technically an acquittal it does not violate the double jeopardy rule. Should new evidence come to light the accused can be retried at a later date for the offence.

A hung jury (where the jury cannot agree a unanimous or majority verdict) will result in the jury being discharged and the trial concluded without a verdict. It will then fall to the CPS to decide whether to hold a retrial at a later date.
Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, if "not proven" is not an option in this case, it seems to me with the jury being out for 5 days already, that they are having trouble deciding he is guilty, and may end up letting him go.

I would have thought the verdict would have come quite quickly if they were going to find him guilty.

"Reasonable doubt" might be in play.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "not proven" verdict won't apply in this case as it's being tried in England but five days is not a long time for jury deliberations. The more complicated the case and the more complex the evidence, the longer it takes to reach a decision. The minimum time required before a judge will accept a majority verdict is 2hrs 10 mins but I've personally seen a case take 11 days before the jury returned a 10-2 majority guilty verdict.
Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rifleman

The more complicated the case and the more complex the evidence, the longer it takes to reach a decision.


Especially if the jurors are hoping not to have to go back to work before the Christmas break ;).

Seriously, I'm glad they're taking their time, and 5 days doesn't seem excessive (in spite of some people in the community apparently having made up their minds after 5 minutes.) The jury will have a lot more evidence and testimony to consider than is available via the news sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeJD

***The more complicated the case and the more complex the evidence, the longer it takes to reach a decision.


Especially if the jurors are hoping not to have to go back to work before the Christmas break ;).

Seriously, I'm glad they're taking their time, and 5 days doesn't seem excessive (in spite of some people in the community apparently having made up their minds after 5 minutes.) The jury will have a lot more evidence and testimony to consider than is available via the news sites.[/quote]

As is typical, the media were focussing on his "guilt" and it seemed the reporting was rather unbalanced. They didn't give much space to the defence case, so it was hard to know which way the case was going. They were going after the "villain" big time.

That is one reason I thought the prosecution reporting seemed to be over egging the pudding, with a lot of speculation and few real facts. I'd be interested to know a bit more about what the defence presented, but if he walks there will still be a lot of unanswered questions.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jury has failed to reach a verdict and has been discharged. It sounds like there were some shenanigans in the jury room.

Quote

Emile Cilliers will face a retrial after the jury was dismissed on Thursday, a day after the judge warned its members against bullying between them.



This is all very strange, but obviously the prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury of his guilt, certainly not enough to get a majority decision.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It might not be so strange. From my reading of events, it seems as though there would only be 9 jurors left, meaning that a unanimous decision would be required, instead of a majority. Reconvening with a jury of 12 makes sense, albeit the Easter timing / delay making it a very stressful wait for those involved.

***********************************************
I'm NOT totally useless... I can be used as a bad example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rifleman

The judge has given direction that he will accept a majority verdict but given that two jurors have been discharged due to ill health any majority verdict will have to be 9-1.



Honest question:

In the US, they will appoint alternate jurors for major cases. If something happens, they can still have a full jury of 12 and not have to declare a mistrial, say if a juror gets sick. In the US, it takes a unanimous jury for a conviction or acquittal. Anything else is a hung jury and a mistrial.

Not done this way in the UK (I now know that unanimity is not automatically required)?
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

Hi Joe,

Quote

In the US, it takes a unanimous jury for a conviction or acquittal.



Not always; it depends upon the laws of each particular state.

Jerry Baumchen



True, but almost all states require unanimity for criminal cases. Federal law requires it. Louisiana and Oregon are the only two states that don't. There was a case that the SC declined a few years back about it in Louisiana.

Civil law is a whole different set of rules.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obelixtim

Jury has failed to reach a verdict and has been discharged. It sounds like there were some shenanigans in the jury room.

Quote

Emile Cilliers will face a retrial after the jury was dismissed on Thursday, a day after the judge warned its members against bullying between them.



This is all very strange, but obviously the prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury of his guilt, certainly not enough to get a majority decision.



Here's an article from The Times of 24 November. It sets it out reasonably clearly, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like the jury were split down the middle with some strong arguments for and against.

Does there have to be a retrial?

Surely the CPS would have to consider whether it is worth pursuing, and I would have thought the prosecution had a very good chance to present a strong case and failed to do so. They'll prolly have trouble coming up with anything new.

What happens if the next trial ends the same way?
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1