Verbal

Not really. You can defer, and they do sometimes make exceptions, but being self-employed is not a recognised excuse.

So 'I can understands' is not you talking homey honky? I'm disappointed.

What's a homky? A homey honky?

You obviously have a better handle on this case than the prosecuting counsel, who told the jury: 'The only discernible reason for the attack was the colour of [stephen Lawrence's] skin.' And 'no other witnesses'? How on earth would you know that, given that this was the first witness called?

I see the usual suspects are jumping in as the result of a single answer under cross examination of one witness. Really quite funny.

Of course! But what's your point? Mine was that some on juries would be too young to remember the original incident. Jurors can be as young as eighteen and as old as seventy. I've often seen young jurors - and juries tend to be a mix of both It's not a red herring, though, because the starting assumption of many arguments on here is that a fair trial is impossible because everyone, including jurors, have already made up their minds. My broader point is that the jury system doesn't work in that way - juries are not ad hoc forums for the confirmation of preconceptions (as I've already said in more detail above).

We have no way of knowing whether Turkish's point is valid or not, because the question of whether there is a fair trial is ultimately down to the twelve men and women on the jury, whose identity, beliefs and preconceptions we simply do not know. On the other hand, there are protections within the system to weigh in favour of a fair trial, including jury sequestration, pre-trial polling of the jury, and direction from the judge. In any case, prior knowledge or preconceptions of the case do NOT necessarily mean that jurors will simply act on these and ignore the evidence, the proceedings of the trial and the summing up by the judge. By the way, too much is assumed about our supposed 'knowledge' of the case. For example, without googling, can you say what the criminal records are of the accused? (Not that this comes up until the verdict). PS I hope you're feeling better now, assuming you took my advice.

Which verbal did not imply...! I said they're frequently in their 20s and 30s, not 'more frequently'. They can also be younger. I know of a number of students doing jury service. All based on nothing but spending two years in courtrooms.

Your poor reading skills are letting you down again. Jurors are frequently in their 20s and 30s. You've invented 'more frequently than' in your own odd little head. But my years of experience as a court reporter tell me that's the case. What's your evidence that it's not?

Are you a racist? You want Dr Verbal's answer? The only person implying such a thing is yourself. To me it's just odd that you fetishise the alleged killers' appearance.

As I say, you'll no doubt get around to dealing with your weird little 'admiration' in your own time. And I assume hyperventilation rather than low reading age prevents you from reading properly what I said. Whether a trial is fair or not requires knowledge that you just don't have, unless you're a jury nobbler or a court reporter. There are safeguards - including a question from the judge about fairness to each juror which, if answered wrongly, can result in a mistrial.

Your odd little friend swooned at the sight of the alleged killers of a black man. I doubt anyone needs to be told anything.

I'll let you wrestle with your own conscience on this one.

There is only selection process. That's the anonymous selection procedure that results in the letter falling through the door. A judge will almost always ask individual jurors whether they know of any reason why they cannot in principle hear the case fairly. If anyone gives a convincing reason for not be able to, they're excused and placed on another case. This is a deselection process - not, as you claim, selection. When counsel object to certain jurors, that is also only a deselection process - they can't choose who they want, only those they don't. In the years I used to spend in court as a journalist, none of this could be reported - nor can it be today.

What an odd reaction. You do know that women serve on juries too, don't you? The selection system of juries is designed specifically to randomise all age ranges, so you're quite likely to find people younger than you might think on juries. Even odder is that you were in any way impressed by the alleged killers of a black man.

You're taking your personal experience and generalising it into a universal fact. Rookie mistake, but entirely predictable in your case. As I say, you have no knowledge of who's on the jury, what they think or know or don't know, and how, during sequestration, they'll deliberate the trial. You also seem to completely forgotten that the murder occurred almost twenty years ago. Jurors are frequently in their twenties and thirties. And even those who are not are likely to be capable of independent and evidenced-based thought, unless you have knowledge to the contrary about individual jurors (This last point you're clearly innately incapable of grasping, but I mention it anyway).

I've never been asked, which is probably just as well. My wife has, though. She was dreading it, and managed to put it off for a while. But when she did it she found the whole experience fascinating. Most of all though - contrary to those on here who perhaps have only been escorted into a criminal court in a nice windowless van - she found that the jury she was on was for the most part careful with the evidence and scrupulously fair.

Was he Turkish?

Unless you've nobbled the jury, you have no idea who the jury members are, so the only way you can be certain is if you stamp your feet and scream that they're biased. I can see that you don't want your dearly held preconceptions to be found lacking (again), but you really should be used to that by now.

I'm not on the jury, and if you had any understanding of jury trials - which I assume you do - you'll know that the defence have all kinds of strategies to weed out jurors who've already made their minds up. Not everyone is as well informed as you, believe it or not.

I have my doubts that the new forensic evidence will stick unfortunately. They killed Lawrence without question, and have only got off so far as a result of what the Met themselves have admitted has been the most colossally incompetent and 'institutionally racist' (the subsequent public inquiry is where the phrase originally came from) investigation. So, again, what's the basis for your suggestion that a sequestered jury is influenced by a media subject to sub judice rules?

Don't worry, I'm sure the judge will hear your special pleading, stop the trial and let them off with a good ticking off. What's your evidence exactly that a sequestered jury is being forced into thinking only of guilt by 'the media', all of which, without exception, have been bound by strict sub-judice rules since their arrests?

The question was only directed at you if you took it to mean you. So the paranoia is all yours. Either that or the pointy white hat. I hope you are thus reassured.

So would you?

Only you can answer that. Would you make the same fuss about trial by media if the two people in court for the alleged murder of Lawrence were instead charged with peadophilia?