Options
Can juries from the same area as a well loved celebrity be impartial
jzee
Posts: 25,498 Forum Member
✭✭✭
It seems someone must have reported my last thread as it got deleted. It is a general point, in that can we really trust that juries from the same areas & backgrounds as well loved celebrities can be truly impartial? Would it not be better that a jury was selected from completely different parts of the country in these types of cases, and in extreme cases where a celebrity is held in high esteem nationwide to have judge only trials?
0
Comments
Is it likely to be a common problem anyway? If we are referring to genuine celebrities, their lifestyle is unlikely to have a lot in common with that of a random panel of jurors.
I thought about this during the Michael Jackson case how did they find someone didn't really know who he was who had not already have heard a lot about it and in the 2nd one didn't know the details about the first one.
Jesus wept! There really is some grade-A rubbish posted on here at times.
No-one could have looked dodgier than Jimmy Savile, and many many people had grave doubts about him over many years. He is not a parallel to Bill Roache. And why do you seem to suggest that BR was tried in his local area? He lives in Cheshire, works in Manchester, but the trial was in Preston.
Given that they're celebrities, what is the relevance of the area of the country that they come from?
Maybe we could recruit from non-human species from far-flung areas of the world, just to be sure?
Well done. you just accused those people of not being able to reach a decision based on the evidence provided.
Maybe "local" celebrities, not ones who are well-known for appearing in networked soap operas.
I must admit, the appearance of Deidre et al did seem somewhat at odds with the court asking the jury to separate Bill Roache from the character he plays.
Or lack of/no evidence.
To us they are celebs, to Bill they are work colleagues providing character statements.
God forbid if I am ever accused of anything like this I would hope my work colleagues would do the same.
Load of tripe in this thread by people who did not attend the trial. Give the jury at least a modicum of common sense. A lot of people seem disappointed he is innocent.
Absolutely.
I think the Crown Prosecution Service needs looking at IMO if it seriously believed these women had much of a case against WR. Come on - it was over 45 years ago and it appears that none of then could get their evidence straight.
What an absolute load of rubbish. The reason he was found not guilty was because of lack of or no evidence whatsoever, nothing to do with where the trial was held.
Exactly, and why so many people believe it is a witch hunt.
Don't be ridiculous.
You're obviously talking about Roach and he's one of the best-known soap stars in the country.
How bad are you saying he is?
Justice systems are limited inevitably by the human factor which is why it's sensible for there to be limitations on their power e.g. not having the power to condemn citizens to torture or death etc.