Thoughts On The Case

[Caroline]

Might be something to do with the fact they had their convictions quashed!

Just as a conviction might not make someone guilty, the fact that they later have the conviction quashed, doesn't make them innocent. They just  played the game better on the day.

[Nicholas]

In my view, the Bamber case can be seen as part of a gradual decline in English due process.  Not that I think Bamber is innocent, and I do think mass murder and child murder are deplorable actions, but if you can't prove a case against somebody, then you have to accept that the defendant must be acquitted, and then resort to other remedies, such as a civil action.  A fair system can't really work any other way. 

I don’t agree & you’ve picked the wrong case to argue ‘due process’

The case against Bamber was proved in 1986 - there wasn’t a hung jury and there have been no successful appeals

In fact the more Bamber has appealed the stronger his murder convictions have become

Even his 25 year life sentence was increased to a whole life term

[Brancher]

I don’t agree & you’ve picked the wrong case to argue ‘due process’

The case against Bamber was proved in 1986 - there wasn’t a hung jury and there have been no successful appeals

In fact the more Bamber has appealed the stronger his murder convictions have become

Even his 25 year life sentence was increased to a whole life term

Thank you and you are very entitled to disagree and I've given you a 'Like'.

See?  We can be civil.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Thank you Brancher for defending the point I am trying to get across.  One of the jury was asleep in the Bamber case so he couldn’t come to a decision as didn’t hear half the evidence!

My sister was on jury service once and their deliberations were going on late. A member came out with “oh I will just say he is guilty. I want to get home to watch EastEnders”

As juries are chosen randomly across the population there are those who do not have the mental capacity to understand the court process.  There should be some sort of test before they are allowed to go into court and make a life changing decision.

Asleep for half of all the witness evidence?  Who was it, Rip Van Winkle?

[mrswah]

Just as a conviction might not make someone guilty, the fact that they later have the conviction quashed, doesn't make them innocent. They just  played the game better on the day.

IMO, you left out the word "necessarily" !

[Brancher]

Asleep for half of all the witness evidence?  Who was it, Rip Van Winkle?

That will be an exaggeration, but the more serious point is that Bamber claims he was asked by Rivlin whether he wanted the sleeping juror thrown off and Rivlin advised against it.

[mrswah]

That will be an exaggeration, but the more serious point is that Bamber claims he was asked by Rivlin whether he wanted the sleeping juror thrown off and Rivlin advised against it.

Where did you read that?  (just asking as a matter of interest)

[Caroline]

That will be an exaggeration, but the more serious point is that Bamber claims he was asked by Rivlin whether he wanted the sleeping juror thrown off and Rivlin advised against it.

And therein lays the problem - 'Bamber claims'.

[Brancher]

And therein lays the problem - 'Bamber claims'.

Yes, but presumably Rivlin would confirm or deny it (subject to release of client confidentiality).  Then again, Rivlin too would have an incentive to mislead or pretend not to recall the conversation.

To be completely honest, on this point I would be inclined to believe Bamber as I don't see why he would lie about that specifically or why he would want to keep a juror on who had been brought to his attention. 

It's not an appeal point anyway.

[Brancher]

Where did you read that?  (just asking as a matter of interest)

Bamber's own blog in 2016:

https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2016/09/on-31st-anniversary-of-jeremys-wrongful.html

[Caroline]

Yes, but presumably Rivlin would confirm or deny it (subject to release of client confidentiality).  Then again, Rivlin too would have an incentive to mislead or pretend not to recall the conversation.

To be completely honest, on this point I would be inclined to believe Bamber as I don't see why he would lie about that specifically or why he would want to keep a juror on who had been brought to his attention. 

It's not an appeal point anyway.

It's all part of playing the victim.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Read my post again.  I stated that not everyone who is convicted is guilty.  Why are you trying to promote arguments?

I’m not trying to promote arguments

I’m stating logic and facts

You’re saying that not all convicted criminals are guilty: do you have the statistics?

[mrswah]

Bamber's own blog in 2016:

https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2016/09/on-31st-anniversary-of-jeremys-wrongful.html

Thanks!

[ISpyWithMyEye]

The convictions of those you refer to are not Afaik underpinned by witness testimony where the witnesses were given immunity against prosecution and/or some sort of personal gain/favourable treatment in exchange for the testimony unlike the following:

Michael Stone - Damian Daley

Michael Steel - Darren Nicholls

Jack Whomes - Darren Nicholls

Jeremy Bamber - Julie Mugford

The above all protest their innocence.

JB - 99.9% innocent imo

Steele/Whomes - 80/90% innocent imo

Stones - Don't know enough to put a % on it

Julie Mugford wasn’t given immunity on her one-off cheque book spending spree fraud she did one Saturday, on the proviso she owned up about what Jeremy had told her how he murdered his family...

She’d ALREADY volunteered the dreadful truth to the police before they they even knew about the cheque book spreading spree.

So you’re wrong.

Besides, even if Julie had been charged with her friend for falsely reporting her cheque book stolen and then going shopping using it, as she had no criminal convictions; owned up to it (she could have denied it); and paid the bank the money back — had she been charged she’d probably have been fined, given a conditional discharge, and that would have been the end of it.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

The convictions of those you refer to are not Afaik underpinned by witness testimony where the witnesses were given immunity against prosecution and/or some sort of personal gain/favourable treatment in exchange for the testimony unlike the following:

Michael Stone - Damian Daley

Michael Steel - Darren Nicholls

Jack Whomes - Darren Nicholls

Jeremy Bamber - Julie Mugford

The above all protest their innocence.

JB - 99.9% innocent imo

Steele/Whomes - 80/90% innocent imo

Stones - Don't know enough to put a % on it

So to the last three you’re admitting you’re not 100% convinced of their guilt

You’re either Guilty or Not Guilty

That means you’re not 100% convinced Jeremy Bamber is innocent...

That also means you’re in the minority: TEN jurors found him GUILTY

And expect for a few muppets everyone else who knows the events are adamant he’s guilty..