I didn’t actually mention physical looks at all, though I can see one might have taken it that way. I gave Arthur Allan Thomas as an example. There was nothing particular about his physical appearance, but things were revealed about him in the trials that made him seem a very unattractive person. It was said, for example, that he kept the public hairs of earlier girlfriends in a matchbox. In the dock his demeanour was unappealing. I think that, in a less extreme form, this was also the case with Field. As I said, “not someone you’d warm to”.

In cases where there is complex forensic evidence, juries are often unable to weigh the scientific evidence and will rely on their intuition, their overall impression of the person in the dock. It’s not a bad way of operating. And it will often include appearance and demeanour.

In general, I don’t disagree with what you’ve said in your comment.

Well, hold on, that’s not what you first mentioned. It was taken to be purely aesthetic — that is, physical looks. Now you’ve just added in “personality” which adds another dimension and transcends “appearances”. A defendant’s personality can be conflated with “demeanour”, and how one conduct him/herself under cross-examination. Which means: body language, eye contact (or lack thereof), quivering mouth, gesticulations; as well as a whole raft of other telltale signs giving clues as to the likely veracity as to what’s been offered up by the accused, to get off the hook.

We all know of people, who, at first glance, seem attractive but are just ugly. You need to look no further than Clayton Weatherston: an OK-looking Mr. Average guy. But, in court, someone who came across as repellent and thoroughly loathsome. Sniggering, sneering, condescending, haughty and narcissistic. And that was his in-court
“personality”. And it, obviously, didn’t predispose the jury to regard him with much sympathy, in their deliberations. If anything, it helped to erase the last remaining vestiges of doubt, as to his shaky defence, of being provoked.

I believe, Field had the unmistakable “look of guilt”; shifty-eyed and far too self-possessed, bordering on smug. Clutching that red bible, at sentencing, was proof positive of my thoughts.

Your usual well-reasoned argument, Mark S. As it happens, I co-authored a book on murder in New Zealand with the late Mike Bungay, QC, an expert on criminal defence. His firm view was that the attractiveness (in terms of personality) or otherwise of the defendant was significant in affecting a jury’s judgement. No doubt you could have put him right.

Yes, if you accept the evidence. I have serious doubts. My view is that self-interested lying by his accusors and some enemies played a significant part in the verdict. We’ll see.

That is really over-simplifing his crimes, almost trivialising them. It was a lot more serious than that. ‘Tiler’ Field actively set out to subvert the course of the police’s investigation by doctoring evidence and counselling witnesses to change their stories; in doing so, he was perverting the course of justice. This was not a case of someone getting tiling done on the cheap; it was a case of someone, who, egergiously, abused his ministerial position to offer enticements by way of an illicit quid pro quo, which strikes at the very heart of this country’s governance.

He’s cost the country literally millions $s, with the Ingram Enquiry and the High Court trial. I think he got off lightly.