ForumGarden

A customer of mine some time ago was a member of a jury in a murder case. I was facinated never having been called to jury service myself. She said she was not allowed to talk about it but over the course of getting her highlights done she told me quite a bit. It got me to thinking if i could keep my mouth shut. I dont think i could, how realistic is it to show people graphic images of brutal murders and expect them to not say anything about it?

I'm sure i would at least have to tell my husband, i'd be upset and need to talk about it.

Would you talk about it?

If i was called to jury service and said - look i'm not the kind of person who would be able to keep this to myself, would they let me go home and choose someone else?

p.s - dont ask any questions about the case as i'm not going to talk about it. I will only say it was a long time ago.

Ill remember this next time I need to share a secret with someone.

Thanks for the heads up Scotty. :p

buttercup;1208268 wrote: Would you talk about it?


Only in the vaguest of terms, and not during the trial.



buttercup;1208268 wrote: If i was called to jury service and said - look i'm not the kind of person who would be able to keep this to myself, would they let me go home and choose someone else?


No.

I've had to do this service twice, BTW!

I have never been called to Jury duty.

I would be able to keep my mouth shut for sure.

So if you had seen images that were horrific and had upset you that's something you would not talk to your husband or wife about? Wow, i'd like to say the same but cant. Well done you two.

Nomad;1208272 wrote: Ill remember this next time I need to share a secret with someone.

Thanks for the heads up Scotty. :p


No problem, i dont want to know your secrets, they'd be scary :wah:

buttercup;1208268 wrote: A customer of mine some time ago was a member of a jury in a murder case. I was facinated never having been called to jury service myself. She said she was not allowed to talk about it but over the course of getting her highlights done she told me quite a bit. It got me to thinking if i could keep my mouth shut. I dont think i could, how realistic is it to show people graphic images of brutal murders and expect them to not say anything about it?

I'm sure i would at least have to tell my husband, i'd be upset and need to talk about it.

Would you talk about it?

If i was called to jury service and said - look i'm not the kind of person who would be able to keep this to myself, would they let me go home and choose someone else?

p.s - dont ask any questions about the case as i'm not going to talk about it. I will only say it was a long time ago. Funny...... a few weeks ago, i would have said no, i wouldn't talk about it.

It's not a scret here that my sister's 16 yr old boy is in custody awaiting trial for murder.

He was questioned for 92 hours by police and i'm afraid i had party to some of his interview under caution. It was then he was shown pictures of the man's injuries and i learned the graphic details which were extremely brutal. I was also in court when the prosecution opposed his bail applications and the reasons they gave were to detail the man's injuries and nature of his death to the court.

It's very easy to say that you won't talk about it but in my case, the fate of this poor man has had a massive impact on my life and i will never ever forget what he suffered and even worse at the hands of my own flesh and blood. You are left with an over-whelming sense of asking how anyone could find that kind of anger and violence. Even worse when the defence gets up and defends them.

I'm in no doubt that the national press will jump on the case when it comes to trial and i know that i will have to sit in the public gallery and hear all the gory details again. I don't think it will ever go away.

buttercup;1208394 wrote: So if you had seen images that were horrific and had upset you that's something you would not talk to your husband or wife about?


a) You shouldn't.

b) It might upset them, too!

You could, I suppose, say "I saw a picture of someone with (damage description), which upset me", but not "and it was relevant to the case in this way".

I think (no offence to anyone) its very easy to say what you would do until you are actually faced with it.

Bill Sikes;1208355 wrote:





No.

I've had to do this service twice, BTW!


But if i told them i couldent keep it to myself and would likely tell my husband and they made me go ahead and be a juror anyway, well who's to blame there?

oscar;1208397 wrote: the fate of this poor man has had a massive impact on my life and i will never ever forget what he suffered and even worse at the hands of my own flesh and blood


oscar;1208397 wrote: the case when it comes to trial


This is *exactly* why you must not talk about stuff such as this.

You are privvy to certain information, by the sound. You are talking about it now, which is wrong - even if you have not been told to refrain from discussing it.

buttercup;1208403 wrote: I think (no offence to anyone) its very easy to say what you would do until you are actually faced with it. How true !!!! When you are party to images of such violence, how on earth can it not play on your mind? Talking about it is a way of dealing with what you have seen.

Bill Sikes;1208402 wrote: a) You shouldn't.

b) It might upset them, too!

You could, I suppose, say "I saw a picture of someone with (damage description), which upset me", but not "and it was relevant to the case in this way".


Well my husband would not want me to be upset and would take the risk of upsetting himself to console me. Also he'd know it was relevant to the case if i said that :wah:

buttercup;1208405 wrote: But if i told them i couldent keep it to myself and would likely tell my husband and they made me go ahead and be a juror anyway, well who's to blame there?


You, for talking! That's the way it goes...

Bill Sikes;1208406 wrote: This is *exactly* why you must not talk about stuff such as this.

You are privvy to certain information, by the sound. You are talking about it now, which is wrong - even if you have not been told to refrain from discussing it. Yes you are correct that pre-trial imfo is subject to sub judice however, the case is cut and dried with confessions. Even detectives on the case have said it matters not what talk there is although i certainly would not go into details about the man's injuries. Anything i do say is merely what has already been reported by the press although the three boys unable to be legally named.

buttercup;1208408 wrote: Well my husband would not want me to be upset (BS: Good!) and would take the risk of upsetting himself to console me. Also he'd know it was relevant to the case if i said that : wah:


If you just said that you saw (that example), it would not be the same as saying "I saw the (damage) caused to X by the defendant Y", though. In that case, you would be saying that you thought Y had done it - in the other case, it's just an upsetting picture, with no context.

buttercup;1208408 wrote: Well my husband would not want me to be upset and would take the risk of upsetting himself to console me. Also he'd know it was relevant to the case if i said that :wah: I agree there as it's natural that my husband and i have talked about what i heard in my nephews interviews and court. There was one particular detail of the man's injuries that made me cry when i heard and saw it. I told my husband about it and really wished i hadn't as he was extremely upset and also cried.

buttercup;1208403 wrote: I think (no offence to anyone) its very easy to say what you would do until you are actually faced with it.


An oath is an oath. There is no grey area.

I have served on a jury in a murder trial. It was against a gang banger for killing the seller of alcohol and drugs. I even was elected foreman. We convicted of 2nd degree murder and I never discussed it until it was over. The man got 10 years. That was about 6 or 7 years ago. I hope he don't remember me. LOL. Many graphic pictures of the crime scene were shown and yes they are disturbing.

Bill Sikes;1208415 wrote: If you just said that you saw (that example), it would not be the same as saying "I saw the (damage) caused to X by the defendant Y", though. In that case, you would be saying that you thought Y had done it - in the other case, it's just an upsetting picture, with no context.


I suppose it depends entirely on the nature of the person witnessing the details of a murder. Some may be able to shrug and say Y did this to X but i'm not of that nature. I saw a man who had lost his life brutally at the hands of others. How could anyone not be affected by that? Why do you think they offer Jury members counselling these days?

YZGI;1208419 wrote: I have served on a jury in a murder trial. It was against a gang banger for killing the seller of alcohol and drugs. I even was elected foreman. We convicted of 2nd degree murder and I never discussed it until it was over. The man got 10 years. That was about 6 or 7 years ago. I hope he don't remember me. LOL. Many graphic pictures of the crime scene were shown and yes they are disturbing. This will sound crazy but i don't think it as bad when the victem was of the same nature. It's when the victem was completely innocent and defenceless that i have had the problem with.

oscar;1208421 wrote: This will sound crazy but i don't think it as bad when the victem was of the same nature. It's when the victem was completely innocent and defenceless that i have had the problem with.
The victim was 50 something. The killer broke into a bathroom window and shot him in bed. Hit him 4 times and missed 4 times.

YZGI;1208430 wrote: The victim was 50 something. The killer broke into a bathroom window and shot him in bed. Hit him 4 times and missed 4 times.
That's really bad. He should practice target more.

buttercup;1208394 wrote: So if you had seen images that were horrific and had upset you that's something you would not talk to your husband or wife about? Wow, i'd like to say the same but cant. Well done you two.


BCup I would take the oath to be sworn to secrecy very seriously. I would be disturbed by the images and maybe put the feelings into a journal of some sort down the road but I would not talk about them no. I know I couldn't.

buttercup;1208403 wrote: I think (no offence to anyone) its very easy to say what you would do until you are actually faced with it.


Very true, indeed. I assure you BCup I have been told other things in confidence in the past both in RL and on FG and they have remained close to my soul.

O it's not a matter of how could we not feel something after seeing something so awful it's a matter of taking an oath and not speaking of it, and us or me finding my way to cope with it. I would suspect there would be all kinds of aid for the jury to obtain if they were struggling with coping with it and one would be wise to take the aid. I think one would have access to a councellor afterwards. I don't know for certain. I do know I could keep my word with a sworn oath.

minks;1208564 wrote: O it's not a matter of how could we not feel something after seeing something so awful it's a matter of taking an oath and not speaking of it, and us or me finding my way to cope with it. I would suspect there would be all kinds of aid for the jury to obtain if they were struggling with coping with it and one would be wise to take the aid. I think one would have access to a councellor afterwards. I don't know for certain. I do know I could keep my word with a sworn oath. Yes, as a jury member, once you have been sworn in, it's a whole different matter i suppose if you talk about it. As i said earlier, in my nephews case, it's quite clear cut and i've not said anything that the press have not already reported. I suppose, if i was sworn in on a jury, i would have to think seriously about discussing it outside as it could affect the trial.

oscar;1208569 wrote: Yes, as a jury member, once you have been sworn in, it's a whole different matter i suppose if you talk about it. As i said earlier, in my nephews case, it's quite clear cut and i've not said anything that the press have not already reported. I suppose, if i was sworn in on a jury, i would have to think seriously about discussing it outside as it could affect the trial.


Remember too you get to discuss it with other jury members as well, not sure that is theraputic or not but your not alone in it. Or holding it in.

minks;1208572 wrote: Remember too you get to discuss it with other jury members as well, not sure that is theraputic or not but your not alone in it. Or holding it in.
That has to be theraputic i would imagine. Our member Fuzzy sent me a prisoners forum which i must thank her for. It's a place i can ask all those questions i don't understand and chat with lifers. We are all open to emotion and i'm not sure how i'd deal with listening to the gory details of a child murder say. What a horrible postition to be in ?

Nomad;1208418 wrote: An oath is an oath. There is no grey area.


Sorry but who am i making an oath to? God?

I dont believe in god and how can i make an oath to anybody else that i wont say a word when i know i will tell my husband.

If i make that clear to the court official and he still makes me go ahead then sorry but he's going to have to accept some responsibility for that as well as me. I've been honest by saying i cant make an oath i cant keep, why should i be forced to do that against my will?

Bill Sikes;1208410 wrote: You, for talking! That's the way it goes...


I hope my post above in response to Nomad clarifies my point here Bill.

minks;1208558 wrote: Very true, indeed. I assure you BCup I have been told other things in confidence in the past both in RL and on FG and they have remained close to my soul.


Yes so have i but it has been my choice to hear them.

minks;1208361 wrote: I have never been called to Jury duty.

I would be able to keep my mouth shut for sure.


I've been called twice....and have gotten out of it, which I am thankful for as the first one was the Paul Bernardo case.......



The only reason I found out it which case it was because I worked for a law Bailiff and he found out as he was also called for jury duty.

I would have never ever been able to sit through that.:-5:-5

and.....I would have had to tell someone.

buttercup;1208707 wrote: I hope my post above in response to Nomad clarifies my point here Bill.


It doesn't.

You said:

> Sorry but who am i making an oath to? God?

Not necessarily. If you don't believe in (a) God, you can affirm.



> I dont believe in god and how can i make an oath to anybody else that i wont say a

> word when i know i will tell my husband. If i make that clear to the court official and

> he still makes me go ahead then sorry but he's going to have to accept some

> responsibility for that as well as me. I've been honest by saying i cant make an oath

> i cant keep, why should i be forced to do that against my will?

You are part of society. It is your duty to perform this service. If you can't keep this sort of promise, tough.

If you were called to jury duty for a case like that, you could always say you do not believe in capital punishment. (I think that would work here in the US)

As far as not talking to anyone, you really can't during the trial. If that was something you could not do, you tell them that during the selection process.

buttercup;1208706 wrote: Sorry but who am i making an oath to? God?

I dont believe in god and how can i make an oath to anybody else that i wont say a word when i know i will tell my husband.

If i make that clear to the court official and he still makes me go ahead then sorry but he's going to have to accept some responsibility for that as well as me. I've been honest by saying i cant make an oath i cant keep, why should i be forced to do that against my will?


I dont think it matters who your giving the oath to.

Youre giving your word.

Its all you have and it should be treated with reverence.

I dont think your getting my point here. I cant give my word as it would be a lie, i know i would tell my husband. Bill says they would still make me do it. So technically ive told them i cant, how can they force me?

buttercup;1208850 wrote: I dont think your getting my point here. I cant give my word as it would be a lie, i know i would tell my husband. Bill says they would still make me do it. So technically ive told them i cant, how can they force me?


:wah:



Ok. Im not trying to get all up in your grill sweetie.

I bet you could if you tried though.

Odie;1208748 wrote: I've been called twice....and have gotten out of it, which I am thankful for as the first one was the Paul Bernardo case.......



The only reason I found out it which case it was because I worked for a law Bailiff and he found out as he was also called for jury duty.

I would have never ever been able to sit through that.:-5:-5

and.....I would have had to tell someone.


Crikey see there is why you have to not leak info, I am sure at the time of the Paul Bernardo case so much was leaked already and it would have been tough to not say he was guilty before you even stepped into the court room.

I think that would have been tough to do but ya take the sworn oath we should be able to keep quiet.

Odie I am glad you did not have to listen to that one. I still don't think I would have told anyone about it though....

buttercup;1208850 wrote: So technically ive told them i cant, how can they force me?


They can't force you. You'd probably have to pay a fine, or something.

Nomad;1208817 wrote: I dont think it matters who your giving the oath to.

Youre giving your word.

Its all you have and it should be treated with reverence. In my trial, i had a right assortment of oath taking which offered up a little humour into the proceedings. The trial was held up while the Clerk went to find the Koran and a lump of birch tree for the woman who practised wicker craft.

Bill Sikes;1208897 wrote: They can't force you. You'd probably have to pay a fine, or something.


Is anyone aware what the legalities of this are? Should i ever be in this position i'd like to know. I cant see how they could fine me for admitting to something i would not be able to do.

minks;1208854 wrote: Crikey see there is why you have to not leak info, I am sure at the time of the Paul Bernardo case so much was leaked already and it would have been tough to not say he was guilty before you even stepped into the court room.

I think that would have been tough to do but ya take the sworn oath we should be able to keep quiet.

Odie I am glad you did not have to listen to that one. I still don't think I would have told anyone about it though....


He only told me secretly, so I would know what I would be up against.

nope, not that trial.....and all the videos?:-5:-5:-5