 |
 |
 |
6. The jury
The jury, which consisted of 8 women and four men, deliberated over three days before returning a verdict. When they were sent out following the judge’s summing up, he asked them to make every effort to reach a unanimous verdict.
When the jury was unable to do so, they were told the judge would accept a majority verdict of 11-1 or 10-2.
On the third day that the jury was out, they indicated to the judge that they were not able to reach a majority verdict.
The procedure then was that the jury, at a point felt appropriate by the trial judge, would be dismissed and a retrial would be ordered.
The defence was discussing bail conditions with the prosecution when the jury was being recalled to be dismissed. At that point the foreman of the jury sent the judge a note to say they had, at the very last minute, now reached a 10-2 majority verdict. They found John guilty of murder.
The trial judge, in making the speculation that John might have returned to the scene of crime, showed that he did not fully understand the evidence.
His speculation, although not viable as a theory, would have had an adverse influence on the jury’s deliberations about the evidence.
If the trial judge did not understand this aspect of the evidence, then it is easy to see why the jury would not understand it either.
Both judges and juries (like all other people) are fallible human beings, and John’s case demonstrates that human fallibility is at the very heart of the entire judicial system.
DNA evidence is relatively new in the minds of the public. The issue of the DNA (semen) found on Mrs. Bolshaw’s negligee, which was linked to John, shows that at some time sexual intercourse took place. It does not prove that he killed her. Yet the DNA evidence has consistently been put forward as proof positive of his guilt.
