Here's the latest from Vicky Smith at Southwark Crown Court.

The jury passed the judge a note with five questions about the case.

Here they are: 

1) can we discuss the legal directions given, as there seems some confusion. A juror is making behavioural assumptions which is taken into account as evidence on many counts?

2) we are to judge each count independently, please clarify?

3) is it allowed to stereotype what the victim should have done prior to an alleged offence taking place in more than one count and using it against them?

4) as opposed to using patterns within counts to help an outcome of one count, surely it is non advisable to take evidence from one count in the future to judge the count in the here and now, NB counts three to nine, please clarify?

5) can the voracity of a witness statement in one count be taken into account when judging the voracity of a witness statement in another count?

My question would be who made the spelling mistakes, the journalist or the jury!?

I'm not usually a pedant on the subject unless it alters the original meaning, or at best makes it unclear.

That aside, it does give us a few clues on which points there is no agreement atm.