Are you talking about the adult hands thing? If so, then that still doesn't prove that it was Joe's adult hands, particularly when the defence are trying to insinuate Mark killed Danny to keep him quiet about the affair.
But Mark was writing a note confessing all to his wife
That defense is fundamentally flawed:)
1. The defence says if we get 3 jurors onside they cant get a majority verdict...eh so jurors are only 6 in number as the judge could still take a majority verdict if they cant get a 10-2 verdict or unanimnous verdict
2. The summing up..the defence barrister can only sum up the events of the trial, she cantsuddenly start with the Danny saw his dad in a car and his dad killed him line..the judge would have stopped her in her tracks
I really couldnt care less who did the other murder, but i do agree as its a trilogy Joe will be killed when found not guilty and series 3 will be a who killed Joe story...and my guess is the vicar as he is running a paedophile ring that Joe and Mark are part of..hence the time Mark and Joe spend with each others kids
So Mark is sitting in his car composing a letter to his wife to say it is all over, but when Danny comes over he kills him to prevent him saying anything to his mum.
And it looks as if they might actually have the jury believe it.
More crock coming from the jury room..its not up to the jury to come up with theories of what might have happened, they have to deicdee on the evidence if the prosecution proved the case.
The way they are doing it juror Fred is giving his theory, then juror Sally gives her theory and they vote on it like x factor...all of this u think xyz happened by the jury is bang out of line and the judge would tell them.
More crock coming from the jury room..its not up to the jury to come up with theories of what might have happened, they have to deicdee on the evidence if the prosecution proved the case.
The way they are doing it juror Fred is giving his theory, then juror Sally gives her theory and they vote on it like x factor...all of this u think xyz happened by the jury is bang out of line and the judge would tell them.
I think the questions may be relevant as its helps to decide the facts of the defence case. The accuracy of how the defence acts is not realistic.
Comments
You know what those country folk are like.
But Mark was writing a note confessing all to his wife
That defense is fundamentally flawed:)
1. The defence says if we get 3 jurors onside they cant get a majority verdict...eh so jurors are only 6 in number as the judge could still take a majority verdict if they cant get a 10-2 verdict or unanimnous verdict
2. The summing up..the defence barrister can only sum up the events of the trial, she cantsuddenly start with the Danny saw his dad in a car and his dad killed him line..the judge would have stopped her in her tracks
I really couldnt care less who did the other murder, but i do agree as its a trilogy Joe will be killed when found not guilty and series 3 will be a who killed Joe story...and my guess is the vicar as he is running a paedophile ring that Joe and Mark are part of..hence the time Mark and Joe spend with each others kids
So Mark is sitting in his car composing a letter to his wife to say it is all over, but when Danny comes over he kills him to prevent him saying anything to his mum.
And it looks as if they might actually have the jury believe it.
What a load of rubbish.
Yeah. Problem is that all the involved parties / potential suspects seem to be utter shits. It is really hard to give much of a toss.
They annoy me even more than Claire now!
The way they are doing it juror Fred is giving his theory, then juror Sally gives her theory and they vote on it like x factor...all of this u think xyz happened by the jury is bang out of line and the judge would tell them.