---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

---

@cee-dee wrote:

It also illustrates how lacking the jury are on aspects of evidentiary matters? However, I think the judge waffled on too much and for too long in summing up, problably confusing the jurors rather than helping them?

---

I'd agree.  And surely, after over 5 days deliberation and no result, the judge should move towards accepting a majority verdict?  The stress of this past week must have been unimaginable for a man of Rolf's age.

---

I'm very wary of majority verdicts; I believe the minority can often be right and you could find that there's one ore two with the integrity or resolve to stick to what they believe is right despite presure from a majority who may well be succombing to the influence of others or who are just plainly getting it all wrong.

 

If one or more of the jury do not agree with the others then I'd expect there's a good reason for it. I know if I thought a case had not been proven and yet everyone else wanted to convict, I'd like to think I'd hold out against such pressure and would be horrified if a majority verdict was accepted that was in conflict with my judgement!

---

Yes, I agree with you re majorities, but I wondered why the judge hadn't gone for it as, after this length of time deliberating, it would seem to be a natural next step.  If I believed someone was not guilty, I would hold out even if everyone else disagreed with me, cos falling in line with my fellow jurors would be much less important to me than helping a person I believed to be innocent.   Not sure what I would do if the situation were reversed and I believed the offence had been commited but the others did not.  Might depend on the type of crime, I suppose, and the likelihood it could be repeated if a person went free when guilty.

CD, I agree these historic cases are very problematic.