Sadly I'm not that either. As my bookmaker will attest.

In the Vicky Pryce trial, the judge in directing the jury that he will accept a majority verdict, has been answering lists of questions posed by jurors, some of which seem, well, a bit nutty. One reported question was:



" whether "a juror could reach a verdict based on a reason not presented in court that has no facts or evidence to support it".



Am I missing something?

They seem like idiots, trying to overcomplicate things. Surely they would have already been directed on half of the questions they're asking?



Edit: And now the jury have been discharged after not being able to agree on a verdict!

Why on earth would a very intelligent woman believe that she could shop her husband to the press without there being serious repercussions for herself?

Indeed.



[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21496566Guilty.[/url

"Take her down, the Pryce is guilty..."

Perhaps, as punishment, they should be made to share a cell ...

... what with you? (Just joking!)

Of course, some old cynics would say that we all know she'll get off with a bender, while he'll do some actual chokey.

It might be tricky to justify. Equal culpability and he did plead guilty, albeit late.

He only pleaded guilty having wasted a whole bunch of the court's time in trying unsuccessfully to get the case thrown out. It wasn't quite the full and frank admission it might have been plus hadn't he spent years bagging CPS etc.

Reading the emails between her and Isabel Oakeshott, I'm surprised it even took that long to come up with a guilty verdict. They seem pretty damning.