Originally Posted by
Parson
Brian W May - "jury that knows diddly squat about flying". What do you want then? A jury of a dozen Hunter display pilots? More likely to convict? Hardly. It is precisely because they know little about flying that they were on the jury. That's how the legal system works.
Exactly so..
The jury system is to have a body whose composition is representative of society in its broadest sense and able to judge a defendant as a peer. A jury is not required to have any knowledge specific to the action being heard; it's almost certainly better off without it. I think it would be very easy for a juror with some understanding of basic aeros to think "Mr Hill should have realised he was too low to complete the loop and therefore should have rolled off the top" or whatever. This is facile thinking, possibly to dismiss such expert evidence as might have been presented.and would be a classic example of a little knowledge . . .
It is the function of the advocates to provide the evidence and arguments to support their contentions in a manner easily understood by a layman. All the jury has to do is weigh those arguments and deliver a verdict; specialist knowledge is neither required nor necessary and there is no reason to suppose that this jury has done anything different. That this particular judgement might not sit easily with many (including me) perhaps is understandable, but as Parson suggests, that's how the system works.