Tony Bennett and the McCann’s.
A retired solicitor who published claims that Madeleine McCann’s parents caused her death has been given a suspended jail sentence.
Mr Justice Tugendhat said 65-year-old Tony Bennett deliberately flouted legal undertakings, given in November 2009, not to repeat allegations about the couple. He said his conduct was so serious that nothing less than a custodial sentence of three months suspended for one year would reflect the harm he had done.
Finding Bennett guilty of contempt of court, Tugendhat said: “I am sure that he intended to allege that the claimants are to be suspected of causing the death of their daughter, and did in fact dispose of her body, lie about what happened and covered up what they had done.”
The London high court judge said he was satisfied that Bennett, of Harlow, Essex, was in breach of the undertakings in each of the 13 representative instances before the court – out of 153 publications complained of. He was not asked to make findings in relation to the other alleged breaches.
He said: “It is essential for the rule of law that injunctions and court orders be obeyed. It can’t be an answer that the person who is giving an undertaking or subject to an injunction can ignore it with impunity while it is in force.”
Bennett, who was ordered to pay the costs of the litigation, apologised to the court. He said: “I recognise the distress I have caused on a number of occasions to the claimants. I would like to apologise to them for that distress.”
The judge said Gerry and Kate McCann, who did not attend court, had suffered injury to their reputations and feelings, and had resorted to legal action not to punish Bennett but to put a stop to his repeated conduct.
He agreed with lawyers for the McCanns that Bennett had played “cat and mouse” with them by complying with the undertakings some of the time. “He was testing them with false or disingenuous assurances and demands for explanations to which, as a member of the public with no responsibility for law enforcement, he was not entitled.”
Which just goes to prove that you can libel some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time….especially not when you have signed an undertaking not to do so at any time…
Those who believe that the Internet is some sort of wild west would be well advised to take notice. Last time I heard a figure for the costs in this matter, it was somewhere in the region of £288,000.
As is well known, I have a long history with this man, his propensity for libel has had to be curtailed by me on several occasions. Hopefully he will shut up now.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/332.html
February 25, 2013 at 04:38
-
Having looked back at Bennett’s ‘involvement’ in the Madeleine case
there is, to my mind only one term that sums up the prat:
‘King of Schadenfreude’
If there is a hell, I hope he rots in it
- February 24, 2013 at 17:41
-
This has to be a classic case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut (and
I’m not implying TB is a nut) However, I suspect that this is going to
backfire.
- February 23, 2013 at 09:29
-
Oh bugger. Our cover blown. Will have to find another site that needs
disinforming now !
- February 22, 2013 at 21:18
-
An old Italian man lived alone in the country. It was Spring and he wanted
to dig his tomato garden, as he had done every year, but it was very hard work
for the aging man as the ground was hard. His only son, Vincent, who used to
help him, was currently in prison. The old man wrote a letter to his son and
described his predicament:
Dear Vincent,
I am feeling pretty bad because it looks like I won’t be
able to plant my tomato garden this year. I’m just getting too old to be
digging up a garden plot. If only you were here my troubles would be over. I
know you would dig the plot for me.
Love Dad
A few days later he received a letter from his son:
Dear Dad,
Not for nothing, but don’t dig up that garden. That’s where I
buried the BODIES.
Love Vinnie
At 4 a.m. the next morning, FBI agents and local police arrived at the old
man’s house and dug up the entire area. However, they didn’t find any bodies,
so they apologized to the old man and left.
That same day the old man received another letter from his son.
Dear Dad,
Go ahead and plant the tomatoes now. That’s the best I could
do under the circumstances.
Love Vinnie
————————————
I get my coat
-
February 22, 2013 at 07:20
-
Is this a MI6 blog – build to ensure that the real coverup is being
maintained by England and Portugal, and MADELEINE MC CANN is left buried under
the Murat driveway !!!
We will truly know if this comment is posted………….Stephen D. Birch
- February 22, 2013 at
07:37
-
Your comment is published Mr Birch – possibly because this blog is hosted
in the US where commentators are personally, legally and financially
responsible for the despicable tosh that some of them choose to
utter.
Welcome to the real world, you’re not in a back street blog
now!
You are the gentleman who climbed over the wall of an elderly ladies
home in the early hours of the morning in order to take photographs that you
intended to sell to the media to further your daft theory, aren’t
you?
Just one of the dwindling number of people who think that the
disappearance of a small girl is some sort of point scoring internet game
rather than a real life tragedy.
- February 22, 2013 at 17:51
-
Hurrah for Anna and well said.
Birch and Bennett are cut from the
same cloth – attention seeking fools who think their certainties over-ride
the rights of others.
- February 22, 2013 at 19:14
-
Anna the fact that you and the Mc Canns refuse to excavate the Murat
driveway, despite 4 US and 1 UK and 1 South African expert in ground
penetrating equipment, confirming something is buried below the Murat
driveway, 99% Maddie tells me there major coverup occurring to protect
corrupt Portuguese police who planted DNA in the Mc Cann hire car, hired
25 days AFTER Maddie went missing. Just dig, I don,t want glory or fame,
just dig or
-
February 23, 2013 at 00:44
-
‘…Anna the fact that you and the Mc Canns refuse to excavate the
Murat driveway’.
Surely, Mr. Birch you are not requiring our esteemed host to travel
to Portugal and to labour mightily in the hot Portugese digging up the
driveway of a private citizen, and without his permission, just to
prove (or disprove) your theories?
Tell you what… Why don’t you take your pick (and shovel) and get
digging yourself! I am sure the Portugese authorities would be
delighted to see you. You may even get the cell they no doubt intended
for Graham Mitchell!!
- February 23, 2013 at
06:55
-
This site is definitely government controlled, and uses
disinformation tactics to hide the truth. Fortunately I am now
versed in them all. Here,s an example . In my previous comment I
state 4 US experts say something is buried beneath the Murat
driveway, to which a government agent diverts the forum readers off
the main topic , which is why are they not digging, to rather
discuss me going to jail. This This time I am going to crush you and
your stupid disinformation tactic , and ask you right back , why are
you not asking the Portuguese police to dig up a driveway we know
has something buried under it, and has never been checked. Before
and after photos prove that. Sorry I am away from my office and
don,t have my disinformation list with me , or I could quote the
actual name of the tactic used. There are 25 used worldwide by
governments and press to suppress the truth. Maddie is under the
Murat driveway, and that is the issue. MI6 share offices with the
CIA in the US and the UK. Hope u enjoyed me countering your
disinformation strategy to coverup the truth that MADELEINE MC CANN
is under the Murat driveway.
- February 23, 2013 at 07:52
- February 23, 2013 at 14:18
-
So… Now the Raccoon Arms is Government controlled? Ho ho!!
Anna, I know your ‘open door’ policy attracts any and all who
seek a bit of discourse and elightenment but… who is this utter
berk? That there are such people out and about, who are not
confined to a secure unit is very worrying and comments such as
that offered are stretching the right to freedom of expression
under Article 10 to their extreme limits!
- February 23, 2013 at 15:12
-
Oh, he’s the pillock who turned up in Portugal with a thing
like a lawnmower and then broke into the garden of the elderly
Mrs Murat in the early hours, ran his lawnmower over the drive
and announced to the world that he’d found Madeleine….came all
the way from South Africa apparently.
At one time I did
wonder why the McCann’s needed a press spokesman, but when you
get to meet some of the characters that hang round that story
hoping for five minutes of fame, and realise the worrying
character of the people they would have to deal with personally
if it wasn’t for Clarence Mitchell, then you
understand….
I’ve never made up my mind personally as to what
actually happened, we can only guess from snippets of press
reports and leaks from the police so I prefer not to have a hard
and fast opinion – however, after five years of close encounters
with the calibre of person who sets themselves up as armchair
detective and persecutes them, convinced they are guilty of
something, they have earned my sympathy on that count alone.
Whatever happened, no one should have to deal with utter nutters
seeking to make money out of what is a tragedy on any
account.
These people seem to think that real life tragedy is
an edition of some sort of X-box game…
Anyway, he’s had his
five minutes of fame in the government controlled snug, and I’ve
put him out with the other two berks. That’s three banned now
for the record.
- February 24, 2013 at 00:20
-
Sadly I think families that get thrust into the spotlight
over a tragedy have to deal with this sort of idiot all the
time. I think there is some sort of club that constantly try
to interfere in the hunt for Keith Bennett despite being told
to back off by his family.
People should always think of
the worst thing that has happened in their own life and then
think how they woudl feel if strangers became obsessed with
it, and blamed them and wrote lies about them and set up hate
groups etc.
- February 25, 2013 at 04:25
-
Well said
he’s an ambulance chaser
Bennett feeds on other people’s misery –
and that is low
- February 23, 2013 at 21:34
-
“This site is definitely government controlled, and uses
disinformation tactics to hide the truth.”
Oh dear, you are definitely off your medication today.
You should seek solace over at Alex Jones and the rest of the
conspiracy loons at http://www.infowars.com/, where you will feel
right at home…
-
February 25, 2013 at 04:46
-
Sorry if this is spam
but some swear by Bach rescue medicines
in case, the paranoia might destroy ya
-
February 24, 2013 at 00:14
-
´Neither the mccanns nor the host of this forum have the right to
excavate anyone’s propery. And maybe the reson the police do not want
to excavate it is because a) they already have, b) they actually got
real experts to look at the findings, and c) i do believe the bit you
looked at was above piping.
If you were prepared to break into the
property etc why did you not just dig there and then if you were so
sure?
And you do realise that no DNA of Madeleine’s was actually
found in the car. The material that was found could have been from any
of the mccanns, so it was a pretty poor job of planting evidence.
- February 21, 2013 at 23:03
-
Tone Bennett is in a bit of a bind now
The law of the land has told him to keep his trap firmly shut
His wee squadron of adoring biddies want him to keep ‘raging against the
machine’ – or whatever Max Bygraves might have termed it
Tricky that
Do they still sell gob-stoppers in Essex?
-
February 22, 2013 at 00:56
-
Isar. I Smell a Rat. I love you to bits, inso far as I am able. But could
you possibly decide wherein your Legal loyalties lie because I am getting a
bit pissed off with your constant change of heart.
Thank you in advance
for your assistance.
- February 22, 2013 at 08:31
-
Love ya right back El,
my opinion of Tone has never wavered/faltered/changed one iota
and Tone is the subject of this thread – non?
- February 21, 2013 at 21:13
-
This Bennett bloke is a genuine fool! To what end would he bedevil the
McCanns, in the face of distinct legal undertakings to do the contrary?? One
has to wonder… Regardless of what his opinion on the subject is, once he has
undertaken not to repeat these incendiary allegations he should not do so!
I really do wonder at some people.
-
February 21, 2013 at 22:09
-
Well, it’s obvious, init? He did it to big himself up in front of his
many female followers who simply adore him. I don’t know what they see
in
him myself, although he does have fairly kissable lips.
- February 21, 2013 at 22:41
-
You may well have a point there about the female followers
don’t know about the fleshy lips though
Tone always reminded me of Jarvis Cocker’s
great grandad
- February 21, 2013 at 22:59
-
Oh, thank God someone else saw that. I thought I was alone. I could
actually fancy him. If I was desperate. Which I often am. But there you
go. No accounting for taste.
- February 21, 2013 at 20:13
-
It appears Bennett has pulled his last cunning stunt – good
Now will someone please relieve him of all his earthly goods?
Starting with that God-awful shopping trolley full of Goebellian
pamphlets
The Harlow hounder deserves no less
- February 21, 2013 at 19:19
-
house prices rather
- February 21, 2013 at 18:59
-
Do any of you really believe Mr Bennett’s got 300 grand lying around in any
sort of equity?
I read elsewhere that he nipped out yesterday and put down
900 quid on a burial plot, which somewhat surprised me as he always seemed
perfectly capable of digging his own grave.
So, who’s going to be stumping
up from which, er, Fund, do you reckon? Adam Tudor, Isabel Martorell, the two
QCs and two legal assistants sitting opposite Bennett this morning were, I
suspect, not doing it for love of the sainted couple.
- February 21, 2013 at 19:18
-
conditional fee i believe. cr have stated they have never been paid by
the fund. so they will have conditional fee insurance. but if tb owns a
house in harlow it is likely it would sell for a good sized chunk since
house prizes within commutable distance from london are through the
roof.
-
February 21, 2013 at 22:02
-
Evidently, Bennett secured a plot in his Local Authority graveyard whilst
they were going cheap. Bennett will likely live to be 95 like his parents,
but think of the cost of a burial plot in 30 years time. And the graveyards
will be full up in 30 years time. Everybody will have to be cremated due to
shortage of land. He is very forward thinking is our Mr. Bennett.
Also killing two birds at a time….when he becomes homeless due to selling
his house to pay for £288,000 legal bill, he can pitch his tent up over his
paid-for plot of land in the graveyard. Nobody can move him on if he owns
the freehold on that grass
- February 21, 2013 at 22:07
-
that would be a shallow grave then
s’ppose those are somewhat cheaper
and Tone does watch the pennies
- February 21, 2013 at 18:36
-
Nah, he’ll be back
Wants to make a martyr of himself
To be remembered forever
- February
21, 2013 at 18:32
-
you guys appear to know a lot about the MaCanne’s, how so if you don’t mind
me asking?
- February 21, 2013 at 18:38
-
in what way do you mean
it is possible to know that bennett has lied
and misrepresented him simply by comparing the files with his
writings.
do you have any specific questions, i do not mind trying to
have a go at answering them.
- February 21, 2013 at 18:39
-
Followed the case from day 1, belinus … actually my home was badly
flooded so was a bit late on forums
-
February 21, 2013 at 19:02
-
Nearly six long and very tedious years of watching the really horrible
things that Mr. Bennett has tried to do to The Mccanns, without a scrap of
proof. His intention always being to destroy them in The Court of Public
Opinion.
Okay, so I am a lonely old fart who spends too much time on The Internet.
But I ain’t daft, and I do know a bit more about The Law than most.
And No, I doubt that this is over. Bennett is now offering to withdraw
his “Right” to a Libel Trial if The McCanns pay some of The Costs which have
been awarded against him by Judge Tugendhat. One might wonder about his
mental health.
- February 21, 2013 at 23:36
-
No, it’s not over.
It might be for Bennett, but he never did have any strategic plan or
any rationality.
-
February 21, 2013 at 19:03
-
Yes I too wonder, considering that they (the McAnns) come across as a
thoroughly nasty pair of oiks whenever I have seen or heard anything of
them.
Doesn’t mean they are guilty of child murder and then covering it up
though…
- February 21, 2013 at 19:15
-
i have never thought that, they just seem an ordinary couple suddenly
thrust into extraordinary circumstances.
- February 21, 2013 at 19:23
-
An ordinary couple. With rather extra-ordinary resources…
- February 21, 2013 at 19:34
-
To be honest I stopped following the case when it turned into a
circus. In that sense anything offered is info I would be interested
in.
I do remember however holding a deep sense that something is
missing in the affair, but we cannot expect any parent to act in a
particular manner when such is overshadowing them.
Could not warm to the father at all.
I am aware of the cost to move up the ladder of the kingdom of
earth for some, it did cross my mind…
-
February 21, 2013 at 21:57
-
CR and other legal companies do CF work for lots of people, not
just those in the public eye.
- February 22, 2013 at 18:46
-
“…an ordinary couple suddenly thrust into extraordinary
circumstances.”
Should I bite? You seem hardly worth it…I think I’ll pass…
-
February 24, 2013 at 00:09
-
Seriously you took the time to write a reply telling me I was not
worthy of a reply?
Are you seriously telling me you do not think
being a couple of doctors married with children is ordinary, or do you
not think having your child abducted is extraordinary?
- February 21,
2013 at 17:55
-
I agree it sure looks like Judge T. got the measure or him.
I loved
reading the subtle -and not that subtle- remarks, like “His attitude that
fundamental or human rights are only for himself”.
Will this make an end to his stalking, harassing and accusing Madeleine’s
parents?
Call me cynical but I doubt that.
-
February 21, 2013 at 16:35
-
I am overawed by the written Judgement of Judge Tugendhat. He didn’t miss
one single devious trick that Mr. Bennett endeavoured to pull. And he did it
in such an incredibly short space of time. The Judgement was pure joy to read.
Not because I care about what happens to Mr. Bennett, but just to see a great
mind at work.
I also hope that Mr. Bennett will shut up, and I make not
predictions of whether he will or not. But is was always the only thing that
The McCanns wanted.
Oh, and me.
Costs at approximately £288,000, could
be reduced somewhat, but not a lot I think, since The Judge stated that this
was the fault of Mr. Bennett by refusing to either seek, or had possibly
rejected Legal Advice, while still proceeding to pull every trick in his
book.
“Free Speach and Yuman Rites, but only for me Bennett.” Take that one to
The Court of Human Rights.
- February
21, 2013 at 23:01
-
Elena,
First rule of legal advice from Abraham Lincoln, ” He who
represents himself has a fool for a client.”
- February 22, 2013 at 00:34
-
Yes, I know, Brian. But this is not necessarily true. Sometimes you
have to be a complete dick head to miss the point. And sometimes some
persons are able. This wasn’t so on this occasion.
Mr. Bennett allowed
his judgement to be clouded by his all consuming desire to find some other
person wanting. I truly do not understand for why he had to do this.
To
represent yourself? Who knows? I frequently went into Court to represent
my Employer without one wit of legal training, and always everyone was
kind to me, not least The Judge. And I never lost one single Case. But
then I was never a smart arse.
I am really sad about what has happened
today, but only because Mr. Bennett is a fool. And a nasty one at
that.
- February
21, 2013 at 16:31
-
Quote
He agreed with lawyers for the McCanns that Bennett had played
“cat and mouse” with them by complying with the undertakings some of the time.
“He was testing them with false or disingenuous assurances and demands for
explanations to which, as a member of the public with no responsibility for
law enforcement, he was not entitled.”
What kind of judge was this?
Principle 7 of the 9 principles of law
enforcement is clear :
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality
to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public
are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to
give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in
the interests of community welfare and existence.
I know nothing about this chap but at least let us get law in the correct
order, that from a judge is the reason we are in the mess we are.
- February 21, 2013 at 16:53
-
He qualified the statement that Bennett was just a member of the public
by adding “with no responsibility for law enforcement”. So Bennett has no
right that anyone answers questions to him, in fact he could actually
endanger any future trials by this behavior.
- February 21, 2013 at 17:31
-
There isn’t going to be any future Trial, although I agree that Mr.
Bennett would have endangered one such, if there ever was one. But he
knows that. So in effect, he has destroyed his own objective.
It was
always his intention to destroy The McCanns in the Court of Public
Opinion. I don’t know why this is so.
I might have said that Juries
aren’t daft, but I don’t think that one will wash anymore.
We now head
closer to Trial by Judge. Would this be such a bad idea?
- February 21, 2013 at 19:21
-
I’m not entirely sure why he felt the Court of Public Opinion needed
the help, frankly…
- February 21, 2013 at
21:14
-
So presumably you think that The Court of Public Opinion has some
Jurisdiction in Law? Sorry. It doesn’t. This happens to be a fact.
And yer, yer, yer, I left my children alone on occasions, for which
I owe you no apology. Or them for that matter. Although I must say
that they all hate me now and again because I wasn’t perfect. But, ha
ha, neither are they. I just choose not to tell them so. Any more than
I ever told my Father that I thought he was a waste of space.
Sometimes people don’t always do exactly as they should. But this does
not necessarily amount to Child Neglect.
- February 22, 2013 at 05:54
-
“So presumably you think that The Court of Public Opinion has
some Jurisdiction in Law?”
Well, I’m not sure how you could reach that conclusion from what I
said. Unless you were a Pryce Jury member?
-
February 24, 2013 at 00:06
-
well severla media outlets had admitted they had printed false
stories about the case, so perhaps he jut wanted to keep the lies
going. he has certainly written lie after lie about them, even during
the trial he was telling journalists that they had spent four millon
on various court proceedings which was a lie. If one looks at the
forum where he wrote this he has made up the number of hours and the
costs per hours, miscalucalated some of these by a factor of ten,
included the cocts of court cases that the mccanns were not involved
in (when he made false accusations who supported them for instance),
and ignored the fact that CR had told him that they wer enot paid by
the find madeleine fund.
We now see people expressing their
disbelief at his claims thinking them to be true.
- February 21, 2013 at 16:22
-
What a dick. It’s been quite a decent week for us dicks, what with Oscar
‘whoops, the girlfriend’s dead’ Pistorias, Vicky Pryce’s jury with ‘is it
alright if we base our judgement on stuff that has bugger all to do with
anything?’ and now this penis landing a whopping great kick you out of your
house type bill for, err, sadistic kicks I guess. I thought lawyers were menat
to consider cui bono – what exactly has he got out of it? ho hum…never
mind.
- February 21, 2013 at
16:40
-
February 21, 2013 at 21:32
-
Vicky Pryce’s jury with ‘is it alright if we base our judgement on
stuff that has bugger all to do with anything?
Interesting point. My impression on reading those questions that the jury
sent to the judge was that the more intelligent members of the jury sent
those questions in the hope that the judges responses would provide an
authoritative answer to other recalcitrant jurors whose performance as
jurors was making the whole thing a farce.
The question what is reasonable doubt? is certainly one that
perplexes juries on both sides of the Atlantic. Replying that it is a doubt
that is reasonable does little to lift the fog. To me the problem is
interpretation of the word reasonable. What kind of reasoning is
acceptable as the underpinning for doubt? Anyone who has ever had a
discussion about interpretation of the Bible with a fundamentalist Christian
(who is not himself a fundamentalist Christian) will soon discover that what
one person considers reasonable may be what another considers quite
unreasonable, if not insane.
- February 22, 2013 at 09:07
-
OK, some of the questions were a bit dumb, but I’m not surprised the
jury were having a serious case of WTF?
One bloke stood up and said “she took speeding points”.
Vicky Pryce
stood up and said “yeah but he made me”.
First bloke said “nah, he
didn’t, ‘cos she’s got a good job, innit?”.
I guess they were waiting for witnesses to be called, evidence to be
presented, you know, all that “courtroom” stuff that usually happens at a
trial.
-
February 22, 2013 at 09:09
-
*First bloke said “nah, SHE didn’t, ‘cos she’s got a good job,
innit?”. (cold fingers – I’m up North! )
-
February 22, 2013 at 20:21
-
@ Jonathan Mason
I am aware that on twitter there is, or was, a long
discussion going on between lawyers and legal experts, as to whether the
judge properly directed them about reasonable doubt.
That said, when I
heard about the ‘can we use other reasons rather than the evidence’
question, I could only think that they must have ended up with a gaggle of
anti-McCann pitchforkers within the jury.
-
February 21, 2013 at 21:59
-
It is reported elsewhere that the “12 good men and true”, supposedly
representative of the local community and who made up the Vicky Pryce jury,
consisted of 10 members from Afro-Caribbean and Asian origin. Eight of the
12 were women.
Whether any of this had any bearing on their conduct may be a topic of
some debate, but those proportions do not seem to reflect the community in
which the alleged offence was committed. Judged by one’s peers ?
- February 21, 2013 at 23:32
-
Maybe, but the English-speaking Caribbean has the same jury system.
It seem to me that the whole trial was a farce and the jury might just
as well have discharged her.
What she did was obviously wrong, but she is not a danger to
society.
- February 22, 2013 at
01:21
-
Vickey Price? Is that her name? And jut how many female members of
this Forum would have welched on their husbands, MP of somewhere or
another, if he had sicked this on them. Not too many, I do suspect.
He should never have left her for a lesbian. But that is neither here
nor there. ORLY?
- February 24, 2013 at
22:59
-
But you it seems are all over the place
-
February 22, 2013 at 13:33
-
Although juries are selected from the local community, it is by random,
and not according to any rules that there must be an exact demographic
match. Both “sides,” of course, get to challenge the inclusion of
individual jury members.
-
February 22, 2013 at 14:25
-
Although that’s the principle, it only ever delivers those people
willing to participate and/or not smart enough to concoct an acceptable
excuse. Then add in the facility for both sides to challenge jurors
until an agreeable dozen emerges, and it’s almost certain that a jury
will nowhere near represent ‘peers’, thus failing in its primary
objective.
For some time, juries in complex financial trials have proved
demonstrably inadequate for the task. This problem now seems to be
extending into the area of the more basic criminal trials, which may
signal a need to review the whole principle of jury trials, it no longer
being feasible to expect the average available UK citizen to be capable
of absorbing, analysing and concluding on even a relatively simple trial
such as this one.
-
February 22, 2013 at 17:32
-
Jury selection is not quite as “blind” as it looks. The interweb
contains information on avoidance of it. There are a lot of ways for
someone to shirk it. I should think a typical jury is likely to be
atypical, in that many of those savvy enough to stay off the jury manage
to do just that. While the questions put to the judge seemed a bit daft,
view that in the context of say, the less bright kids in the class who
didn’t realise how not to volunteer for some onerous task, and maybe its
no more or less than you would expect.
{ 68 comments }