Trial by Media

[prime]

It was virtually impossible for them to get a fair trial for two reasons. Firstly, their guilt was seen as self evident by both the press and the public to the extent that the judge remarked that, "if these statements of evidence before trial which corrupt the purity of the administration of justice in its source are not checked, I tremble for the fate of our country." The newspapers had shown great interest in Thurtell's case and every detail was lapped up by an eager public. Secondly, this was to be the last trial in England conducted under the old 16th century principals in which the accused has to defend himself against the prosecution, being allowed only to make a speech after the evidence against them had been heard and not being allowed to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. This was hardly conducive to a fair trial and neither man was represented by counsel. Thurtell made a lengthy and somewhat rambling address to the court in which he tried to shift the blame for the killing to Probert. He referred to his Christian upbringing and also made references, apparently, to Voltaire and Saint Paul, all of which failed to impress either the judge or the jury. A witness for Thurtell said, "I always thought him (Thurtell) a respectable man." Being asked by the judge what he meant by this he replied, "He kept a gig." Not surprisingly, this was not in itself enough to save him and it took the jury just 20 minutes to find both accused guilty.

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/thurtell.html