The information provided by me, is provided on good faith, and I hope it is investigated further. It may turn out not to be true, but if there is the slightest element of fact, I trust the court and legal authorities will investigate further, to ascertain whether or not this did happen.
Any collusion/communication/undisclosed interest in a criminal case MUST be disclosed beforehand, if conflicting with the fair and legal functioning of the jury.
This morning, a member of the public gallery told me at first hand how they CLEARLY noticed a member of the jury wink at Nick Griffin.
I am obviously open-minded about this, as the following things could have happened.
1) The juror in question, might have had a piece of dust in their eye.
2) Or a rogue eyelash.
3) Maybe (no humour intended), the member of the jury had just awoken, and wasn't in full control of their eye movements.
The most worrying, and highly illegal conclusion, is that the wink was indeed an unauthorised method of communication between juror and defendent, contravening several sections of British law, and in-fact threatening the whole facet of British law that is enshrined in our constitution -
THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE JURY SYSTEM.
If there is any doubt whatsoever surrounding the actions/interactions of one member of the jury, it is imperitive that the claim is thoroughly investigated by WQednesday's courtroom CCTV evidence, to ascertain whether or not there was any truth to the rumour that one of the jurors did indeed wink to Nick Griffin.
As stated before, THIS IS NOT idle TITTLE-TATTLE or HEARSAY.
I trust the Leeds Crown Court Judicial Team will study the cctv evidence fully.
It won't take long to study the CCTV cameras from a single court session.
Yours Sincerely,
The Illuminator
Any collusion/communication/undisclosed interest in a criminal case MUST be disclosed beforehand, if conflicting with the fair and legal functioning of the jury.
This morning, a member of the public gallery told me at first hand how they CLEARLY noticed a member of the jury wink at Nick Griffin.
I am obviously open-minded about this, as the following things could have happened.
1) The juror in question, might have had a piece of dust in their eye.
2) Or a rogue eyelash.
3) Maybe (no humour intended), the member of the jury had just awoken, and wasn't in full control of their eye movements.
The most worrying, and highly illegal conclusion, is that the wink was indeed an unauthorised method of communication between juror and defendent, contravening several sections of British law, and in-fact threatening the whole facet of British law that is enshrined in our constitution -
THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE JURY SYSTEM.
If there is any doubt whatsoever surrounding the actions/interactions of one member of the jury, it is imperitive that the claim is thoroughly investigated by WQednesday's courtroom CCTV evidence, to ascertain whether or not there was any truth to the rumour that one of the jurors did indeed wink to Nick Griffin.
As stated before, THIS IS NOT idle TITTLE-TATTLE or HEARSAY.
I trust the Leeds Crown Court Judicial Team will study the cctv evidence fully.
It won't take long to study the CCTV cameras from a single court session.
Yours Sincerely,
The Illuminator
Comments
Display the following 6 comments