Belgarion wrote on Oct 25^th, 2022 at 6:30am:



How could she give consent if she was so inebriated she couldn't remember?

Frank wrote on Oct 25^th, 2022 at 8:04am:


If she was so inebriated that she cannot remember giving consent, in the eyes of the law, she did not give consent.

This really bugs you guys, huh.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 25^th, 2022 at 6:30am:



It's just as probable he looked in on her snoring on the couch after doing his thing in his office and said -

"Stuff this - she's pissed and passed out ...I'm going home to the girlfriend... leave her to it ... she'll be all right ...."

Without conclusive evidence of sexual contact...

mothra wrote on Oct 25^th, 2022 at 8:06am:


Crap.

Anyway. Nothing happened.

12 Angry Men people. 

Justice McCallum said judges are usually reluctant to discharge a jury because experience has shown that juries can often agree if given more time to consider and discuss the issues.

“But if after calmly considering the evidence and listening to the opinions of other jurors, you cannot honestly agree with the conclusions of other jurors, you must give effect to your own view of the evidence,” she said.

“Each of you has taken an oath or affirmation to give a true verdict according to the evidence. And as I told you yesterday morning, that is ultimately the only expectation of you and it’s an important responsibility. You must fulfil it to the best of your ability.

“You each take into the jury room; your individual experience and wisdom and you’re expected to judge the evidence fairly and impartially in that light.

“You also have a duty to listen carefully and objectively to the views of each and every one of your fellow jurors. You are all equals in the jury room. You should calmly weigh up one another’s opinions about the evidence and test them by discussion.”

Justice McCallum said calm and objective discussion of the evidence “often leads to a better understanding of the differences of opinion which you may have, and may convince you that your original opinion was wrong”.

"That of course is not to suggest that you can consistently, with your oath or affirmation as a juror, join in a verdict if you do not honestly and genuinely think that it is the correct one,” she said.

“I remind you of the direction I gave you summing up that your verdict whether it be guilty or not guilty must be a unanimous one and your note reflects the fact that you understand that as all 12 of you must in the end agree upon that verdict.”

She said it does not matter “that you do not agree as to why that particular verdict should be given” and that jurors may take different paths to a unanimous decision.

“However, experience has shown that often juries are able to agree in the end if they are given more time to consider and discuss the evidence,” she said.

“For that reason, judges usually request juries to re-examine the matters on which they are in disagreement, and to make a further attempt to reach a verdict before they may be discharged.

“So, in the light of what I have already said, I asked you to retire, again, to see whether you can reach a verdict in this trial.”

Justice McCallum said she will not call the jury back to reconvene until she receives another message from them.

“Rather than call them back in at 4pm we should see where they land,” she concluded.Five minutes after being told to continue deliberating, the jury sent a note to the judge requesting to retire for the day.

Court reconvened at 3.40pm and Justice McCallum sent the jury home.

The eight women and four men will resume their deliberations at 10am tomorrow.

The lack of panties has Britts credibility in tatters.