I agree that it's been quite unfair on them. No doubt these questions were sticking points between them and they were asking the judge for clarification. I mean, one person's reasonable doubt might seem totally unreasonable to another person.

Still, some good news comes out of this, the bunny boiler has to go through all of this again in another trial.

A woman whose husband leaves her after 26 years of marriage should really take it all on the chin and not make a fuss, I suppose?  

I don't mind another trial as long as the Daily Mail readers pay for that too. Meanwhile, compare the publicity given to the recent terrorist trial, and this one, and the Boer for that matter.

I'm ashamed to say it but I know I'd be a prize b**ch if Mr Woo shat on me so publicly. I'd love to say I'd remain dignified and take it on the chin but I know I wouldn't. A woman scorned and all that .............

 

Mr Woo wouldn't know what hit him. 

Im sorry but she sounds like a right nightmare to me, and I dont believe her claims that he bullied her, shes comes across as an intelligent and strong woman who knows her own mind.

And we all know that scorned men often do far worse! 

And how does he sound to you?

Like a typical MP, a coward and a liar in order to save his own skin.

 

They deserve eachother.

Any woman who has been a supportive partner/wife for 26 years and borne children with someone should IMO get a bit more respect than he has given. The words Bunny Boiler are totally inappropriate .......they had been married for 26 years - husband and wife - if all is to be believed he co- erced her into terminating two pregnancies and take the rap for him on a driving offence. I wouldn't call that a Bunny Boiler - why describe her as such?

I agree with you, Vids.  Now that's not something I post every day!

 

IMO, she comes across as a spiteful, vindictive witch whose only motivation was to destroy her ex, because he had the audacity to dump her. I don't believe for a second that she was bullied, or even persuaded into doing anything she didn't want to do.

I also agree that he is a cowardly liar, who was happy to twist the truth to save his political skin.

When i did Jury Service I felt rather poorly guided.

Indeed, and I bet the jury was split along the same lines - those who blame her for making his crime public and think she should have taken it on the chin, and those who think she was poorly treated and don't think she should now be punished for his crime.

 

We haven't heard his side of the story, as he just went from outright lying, to suddenly pleading guilty. If I was on the jury, I'd want him called to give evidence. If what she says is true, maybe he'd have some decency and admit that he coerced her into signing. Or maybe he'd want her found guilty. You know what men can be like, when they've been found out!  

Well I did wonder if the Judge in this case has done his job properly. It is his duty to guide/direct the jury and it did seem to be a rather convoluted case. Quite surprising that the jury had so many questions ......I suppose it lets him off the hook if he can turn it around to make the jury look foolish. Heaven forbid that the Judge handled it badly.

At least they had the integrity to own up that they didn't understand.

 

I wonder is there a "plain english" guide for the jury in addition to the judges directions. Sometimes cases are considered too complicated for a jury and they aren't used eg fraud cases.

..if all is to be believed..

 

She was exposed as a liar on day one when trying to entrap him over a phone tapped by a journalist.

Audacity, really?

 

His affair had been found out, by the press, so he tells his wife (of 26 years) that he is leaving her and goes to the gymn. How would you react?

So, any undercover police officer who uses similar tactics to entrap a criminal is also a liar and not to be believed?

She was lying. The end.

If that trial was up here the "Not Proven" verdict would maybe have been used.A third option in Scotland,we have guilty,not guilty,and Not Proven(neither innocent or guilty.

As has every human being on the planet, therefore no one is to be believed, ever?

I don't understand why they were not charged together.

I don't understand why he can't be sentenced until her trial is over. Does he get a different sentence depending on whether she is guilty or not? 

She could just have divorced him and got on with her life...perhaps.?

It just isn't a good start to a case that rests on being believed.

Hand on heart Blizzie, would you be defending a man who had behaved in the same way as her?

I think you agree with me alot more than you admit.

 You wish! 

Or it could be looked at as her being confident that this was his crime and not hers. Imagine if he had admitted it and apologised for making her take his points? Would she  still be seen as an unreliable witness?

 

Hopefully she has gambled and lost. Unless I've got my facts wrong she is a decorated high powered economist. She would 't be doing that if she was easily bullied. If it was Mrs Jer and I we would probably go down, and so should they.

I'm sorry Blizzie but the moment she agreed to take the points she became complicit in the crime. She committed a criminal act.

Yes, human emotions are often that calm about marital breakdowns and affairs, aren't they? 

Yogi - I think I would. If a woman had persuaded her man to take her driving points - had terminations - against his wishes and then casually announced she was leaving him for someone else after the affair had been discovered (leaving him with the kids and publicly humiliating the whole family) whilst at the same time her career was on the up and up - I'd defend the guy for seeking revenge ......honestly I would.

 

He has behaved like a complete louse and he is in a position that we are supposed to respect ..........OK so there is spite in what she has done but I don't blame her.

Millions of men and women seem to manage it tho.

 

Cutting up his clothes, or feeding him dog food for dinner, thats normal revenge, but this woman tries to entrap him with a jounalist.

Fair enough, Soozy.

I don't blame her in the least for being annoyed and upset at being dumped, however the way in which she chose to show her displeasure smacks of an incredibly spiteful and vindictive personality. Her smirking expression as she went into court each day only reinforces that opinion.

Anyway what goes around, comes around and I hope it comes back to bite her on her butt.

Btw, I agree he is a louse.

Hand on heart, yes. If I thought a woman had badgered her husband into taking her speeding points, told him that he would be to blame for her losing a chance of a job she had always wanted, put his name down on the form and made it impossible for him to do the right thing without dropping her in the sh!t, then yes, I'd blame her.

Okay, I believe you.