The jury are divided roughly in half—those who don’t take notes and those like me, who do. The ones who don’t say they “have it all up here” pointing to the top of their head and we note-takers can’t help but look sceptical. We tried out the vagaries of each system the other day. One juror said “I remember he said “I am X and you are Y” I piped up that I remembered that too. “Oh, no,” said a notetaking juror, “I wrote down in quotes that he said “I am Y and you are X”. “Wait,” said I, “I’ll look up my notes. Disappointment. My notes simply said “XY” with no I or you. I suspect my notes will be pretty inadequate after two weeks of evidence. What we need is the transcript of the trial. What we will get are the summing up speeches of the Crown Advocate Depute, of the defending lawyers, and legal directions from the Judge. We are allowed during deliberations to ask questions to clarify matters. But we are only allowed to make up our minds based on the evidence provided. “Don’t try and play detective” is the advice.
Previously it never occurred to me to worry too much about whether or not “evidence” is true. Naively I have always presumed that “evidence” is factual. What about “evidence” which you can’t see or handle? It is really frustrating when the lawyers refer to such and such a document but don’t give the jurors a copy!
The fish and chips on Friday were delicious as was the pudding of millionaire shortbread. Yesterday the pudding was tablet. No wonder it is harder to stay awake for the afternoon sessions! Interesting that there are no salad options on the menu. I salivate at the thought that perhaps one day we will get the choice of a deep fried mars bar! And I have already put on a lb in weight!