David Singleton's Diary

Today at the Vicarage The

A transformative day for the diary. I accepted the invitation to write an online diary without questioning its purpose, 'trusting in the process'. Until this point, the decision to write the diary has been arbitrary. There was no great need or necessity, either on the part of the writer or the readers. The word 'windbag', as suggested by 'RW' comes to mind.
there is now, however, a great need, and this online diary presents a possible forum. This will require an interaction with the 'honourable posters to the Guestbook' – something I have thus far not done.

So – an act of engagement.

Who is the Vicar?
I have followed this thread with some fascination. The answer is, of course, very simple and unexciting. I am the Vicar. Or as 'Blabbermouth' puts it, the Tricker is the Vicar. This may be frustrating to those who have been playing the 'Vicar is Eno/Hammill/Fripp/Singleton/Gabriel/Cliff Richard/Sinfield/Giles game'. As numerous postings have suggested, if the Vicar were any of those people, the diary would bear their name. It would be as well to have threads asking who is Bob Dylan/Cliff Richard/Ringo Starr/Sting/David Bowie/the Pope etc.
On a deeper level, after many years, I am still only dimly glimpsing what it means to be the Vicar. As an earlier posting noted 'much of our sense of ourselves is delusional'. The Spanish writer, Unamuno, maintained that there are four sides to our character – how we see ourselves, how we would like to see ourselves, how others see us, and how God sees us. Finding the answer to the question 'Who is the Vicar' is the work of my lifetime, possibly several lifetimes.

The Vicarter
A wonderful posting to the guestbook on 6th August. As I do not intend to make postings on Sundays, might I suggest that you submit exciting trifles to fill the empty void? I am sure my life would be far more exciting in your hands. I shall see if Dan Kirkdorffer can supply an email address for such gems, should anyone wish to take up the challenge.

And so to the main business of the day. My role as pompous 'windbag'.
Punk’s appearance in court was far from 'noneventful' as suggested by RW. During my week in court, I witnessed a complete failure of the adversarial system to find either 'truth' or 'justice'. Critics of the system, such as Donald E Watson - whose article 'The Game of Law' was brought to me courtesy of an idle search on 'the law and the truth' on Yahoo! – might suggest that our system has no interest in the truth. Both sides are merely interested in winning. In that case, perhaps the system needs changing.

I shall quote from a letter I have drafted for an as yet unknown audience. I have unfortunately had to 'sanitize' this letter for publication on the internet. In the actual letter, I disclosed the details of the trial at much greater length, which I cannot do here without consent from the parties.

Dear….

It is with much reluctance that I find myself 'picking up a cross' and writing this letter. Last week, however, I witnessed a trial, which has shaken my belief in our legal system, and which has caused me to publicly air my views, in an effort to change the way in which such cases are handled.

This was a simple, if disturbing, trial, which can be accurately summarized as one party making an accusation against another party. There was NO additional evidence of any kind relating to the charge. Simply the conflicting testimony of two parties. The jury was therefore asked to make its verdict simply on the word of one person against the other. The jury, having been instructed that they must only pass a guilty verdict 'if they are satisfied that they can be sure', passed a guilty verdict.

I believe that verdict calls into question the whole way in which such cases are handled. If asked to judge purely on the conflicting testimony of two people, it is surely impossible to 'be satisfied so that you can be sure'. In effect, I believe that a guilty verdict in this case was philosophically impossible. In bringing this case to court in this way, the prosecution were inviting a lottery, which will convict innocent people, and allow guilty people to walk free. A random grouping of 12 men and women are in no way qualified to simply 'pick a winner' from two conflicting stories with no other evidence or guidance.

Such trials need experts to analyse if the stories are told in a convincing way, psychiatrists to analyse the various parties. The use of lie detectors or hypnosis would be more accurate than a random guess.

I even found myself wondering if the deliberations of the jury need to be overseen by an impartial observer, such as the judge. The judge made it very clear that he is responsible for telling the jury 'what is the law' and that they are 'the sole arbiters of fact'. Is there any way, however, of knowing that the jury acted correctly according to the law in reaching their decision.

Are those who work within the law fully aware of how confusing it can be to those who meet it for the first time? The concept of 'Not guilty', for example, is not a simple one. During his summing up, the judge told the jury, at some speed 'If you believe that the defendant is probably guilty, you must find him not guilty'. For most of the jury, as it was for me, this will have been their first encounter with the courts. It is easy to misunderstand this concept. If you think someone is guilty, why should you find them 'not guilty'?

More importantly, in certain cases, it is often difficult for people not to subconsciously reverse the 'burden of proof'. As the judge stated, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the case, the defence does not have to prove anything. However, with some allegations, in the eyes of many of us, the accusation itself is sufficient to prove guilt. There is no smoke without fire. You have been accused, so you are guilty. There is a risk that a jury will find someone guilty simply because they cannot prove their innocence. Such a guilty verdict would presumably be a legally incorrect decision, yet no one would know.

All you would have is a decision which, in the words of one solicitor, is 'the most astonishing I have known. I would have bet my mortgage on a not guilty verdict'. I am told that, on hearing the guilty verdict, the arresting officer claimed to be 'the most surprised person in the room'.

I am not writing this letter because I know that a colleague of mine is innocent and object to the jury’s decision. I am writing it because I do NOT know if he is innocent or not. The trial was conducted in a way that made it impossible to know. It is that which is entirely unsatisfactory.

If I still do not know, how can the jury find him guilty? We must find a way of ending this lottery.

Yours……etc etc.

End of letter.

I have arranged to meet with our beloved, much revered, but highly useless, MP this weekend, at the cost of little more than the promise of copious Gins and Tonics, but I am doubtful of positive results in that direction. "Letters to the editor' are little more than an opportunity to vent worthless hot air. So, where next with such a campaign? Where might such a letter, or a more detailed article, be usefully placed?