Why was Nevill Bamber in the kitchen?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Rather like the two phone logs: easy to read them however one wants to, two calls or one. The "guilters" say one, the supporters say two. I say we can't be sure, as with the above.

The police were sure, though

And they said NO-ONE responded to them from within the HOUSE

Why is that hard for you to understand?

[Caroline]

The police were sure, though

And they said NO-ONE responded to them from within the HOUSE

Why is that hard for you to understand?

People don't read that log properly.

[G-Unit]

What don’t you understand about the fact that the jury did indeed find Jeremy Bamber GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt?

If you read the post I was replying to you might understand why I made it.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

If you read the post I was replying to you might understand why I made it.

I did, and that’s how I was able to reply to it

You can’t reply to mine because you can’t think of a logical answer...

[G-Unit]

I did, and that’s how I was able to reply to it

You can’t reply to mine because you can’t think of a logical answer...

The discussion was about whether juries should consider 'reasonable doubt'. Obviously they must, because they need to be convinced of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The jury did, indeed, do that in the Bamber trial. In my understanding APRIL wants juries to ignore matters of reasonable doubt. Do you agree with that?


Quote from: APRIL on March 11, 2020, 06:24:31 PM

I'm convinced that allowing what you call "reasonable doubt" to colour the jury's thinking, there will be many more guilty people walking free, to commit further heinous crimes. Are we to risk that for the few of those inside who are innocent? Nothing -NOTHING- in this world can ever be 100% fail safe.

My reply;

Under our judicial system the prosecution is required to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That means juries are quite rightly allowed/expected to consider it. You obviously don't agree with that staple of legal thinking, Blackstone's ratio.

[APRIL]

The discussion was about whether juries should consider 'reasonable doubt'. Obviously they must, because they need to be convinced of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The jury did, indeed, do that in the Bamber trial. In my understanding APRIL wants juries to ignore matters of reasonable doubt. Do you agree with that?


Quote from: APRIL on March 11, 2020, 06:24:31 PM

I'm convinced that allowing what you call "reasonable doubt" to colour the jury's thinking, there will be many more guilty people walking free, to commit further heinous crimes. Are we to risk that for the few of those inside who are innocent? Nothing -NOTHING- in this world can ever be 100% fail safe.

My reply;

Under our judicial system the prosecution is required to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That means juries are quite rightly allowed/expected to consider it. You obviously don't agree with that staple of legal thinking, Blackstone's ratio.

Not wholly. A guilty person on the outside is free to repeat/escalate their crime. An innocent person on the inside has the chance to prove it. We, quite rightly, did away with the death sentence. Life, for the guilty, should mean life.

[Caroline]

The discussion was about whether juries should consider 'reasonable doubt'. Obviously they must, because they need to be convinced of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The jury did, indeed, do that in the Bamber trial. In my understanding APRIL wants juries to ignore matters of reasonable doubt. Do you agree with that?


Quote from: APRIL on March 11, 2020, 06:24:31 PM

I'm convinced that allowing what you call "reasonable doubt" to colour the jury's thinking, there will be many more guilty people walking free, to commit further heinous crimes. Are we to risk that for the few of those inside who are innocent? Nothing -NOTHING- in this world can ever be 100% fail safe.

My reply;

Under our judicial system the prosecution is required to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That means juries are quite rightly allowed/expected to consider it. You obviously don't agree with that staple of legal thinking, Blackstone's ratio.

What exactly about this case would cause you to have 'reasonable doubt'?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

The discussion was about whether juries should consider 'reasonable doubt'. Obviously they must, because they need to be convinced of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The jury did, indeed, do that in the Bamber trial. In my understanding APRIL wants juries to ignore matters of reasonable doubt. Do you agree with that?


Quote from: APRIL on March 11, 2020, 06:24:31 PM

I'm convinced that allowing what you call "reasonable doubt" to colour the jury's thinking, there will be many more guilty people walking free, to commit further heinous crimes. Are we to risk that for the few of those inside who are innocent? Nothing -NOTHING- in this world can ever be 100% fail safe.

My reply;

Under our judicial system the prosecution is required to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That means juries are quite rightly allowed/expected to consider it. You obviously don't agree with that staple of legal thinking, Blackstone's ratio.

How else can a jury convict, G-Unit?

Are you seriously suggesting the whole juridical system should be changed, just because you don’t like to accept the fact Jeremy Bamber was found guilty?

You’re also forgetting that Jeremy Bamber has already lost TWO appeals, plus his appeal at the European Court of Human Rights.  Isn’t that enough to convince you that of his guilt? Isn’t that enough to convince you  that he has absolutely no evidence at all to even suggest he may be innocent?

What motivates you to keep banging on with same old broken record that’s been dismissed by the court of appeal as utter nonsense?

[Venturi Swirl]

How else can a jury convict, G-Unit?

Are you seriously suggesting the whole juridical system should be changed, just because you don’t like to accept the fact Jeremy Bamber was found guilty?

You’re also forgetting that Jeremy Bamber has already lost TWO appeals, plus his appeal at the European Court of Human Rights.  Isn’t that enough to convince you that of his guilt? Isn’t that enough to convince you  that he has absolutely no evidence at all to even suggest he may be innocent?

What motivates you to keep banging on with same old broken record that’s been dismissed by the court of appeal as utter nonsense?

Arrogance and sheer self-belief in one’s ability to know better than everyone else, experts included.  Not just G-Unit but all conspiracy theorists.  IMO. 

[mrswah]

Arrogance and sheer self-belief in one’s ability to know better than everyone else, experts included.  Not just G-Unit but all conspiracy theorists.  IMO.

One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to question the conviction of Jeremy Bamber.  Somebody who does so is not arrogant, nor are they saying they know better than everyone else.  They are just questioning-----IMO.

[Venturi Swirl]

One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to question the conviction of Jeremy Bamber.  Somebody who does so is not arrogant, nor are they saying they know better than everyone else.  They are just questioning-----IMO.

Obviously one does have to be a conspiracy theorist if one is to dismiss crucial evidence on the basis that it was planted and that evidence was falsified, by more than one person, with more than one reason for doing so. IMO.

ETA. also I get the distinct impression that certain people here DO think they know better than everyone else.

[G-Unit]

Not wholly. A guilty person on the outside is free to repeat/escalate their crime. An innocent person on the inside has the chance to prove it. We, quite rightly, did away with the death sentence. Life, for the guilty, should mean life.

I think you might change your mind if you or a relative was the innocent trapped in prison.

[APRIL]

I think you might change your mind if you or a relative was the innocent trapped in prison.

And you might change yours if you saw the person walk free who was guilty of a heinous crime against one of your family. Or perhaps you'd just accept that the jury was right.

[Caroline]

I think you might change your mind if you or a relative was the innocent trapped in prison.

His relatives were the very people who were/are convinced of his guilty!

[G-Unit]

And you might change yours if you saw the person walk free who was guilty of a heinous crime against one of your family. Or perhaps you'd just accept that the jury was right.

It's not up to anyone except a jury to pronounce guilt. That's how the law works.