Tabloids - V - Broadsheets

[Vertigo Swirl]

Why does it? I'd be happy that I did my part and cast my vote according to the high bar of beyond reasonable doubt. There's two very separate concepts - do I think he's guilty? Yes. Do I think the prosecution persuaded me of that with the mainly circumstantial evidence provided in this instance? No. So therefore, I would have to find 'not guilty' according to the letter of the law, or according to the Blackstone formulation that 'it is better that Hundred guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer'.

Then surely it follows that there has been a miscarriage of justice and that Bamber should be freed?  Your opinion about his guilt or otherwise is moot, it's the principle here, the letter of the law, as you say. 

[The General]

Then surely it follows that there has been a miscarriage of justice and that Bamber should be freed?  Your opinion about his guilt or otherwise is moot, it's the principle here, the letter of the law, as you say.

No. Just because I was not suitably persuaded as a virtual juror, doesn't mean the rest weren't. That's why there's 12 jurors. So the process was followed through as per the rule of law. No miscarriage.
A good defence barrister should always ask the jury to consider this very pertinent point when reaching a decision - has the evidence that the prosecution has posited removed any doubt of the defendant's guilt? A an example, in this case the prosecution built their case around the 2nd hand testimony of JM - and she wasn't exactly unimpeachable.

[Nicholas]

"In all honesty I would not have convicted Bamber on the evidence I heard. Admittedly, I didn't attend every day of the trial, but the evidence I heard left me far from certain that Bamber's guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt. And yet I believe Bamber was guilty. I remember thinking later that I now understood the benefit enjoyed by Scottish juries of being able to return a verdict of "not proven":

Sums it up for me.

What does it sum up exactly ?

That David Connett is willing to give his public opinion even though he admits to having not attended the trial every day

Yeah that sums it right up

‘In all honesty I would not have convicted Bamber on the evidence I heard‘ but I didn’t hear all the evidence 

[The General]

What does it sum up exactly ?

That David Connett is willing to give his public opinion even though he admits to having not attended the trial every day

Yeah that sums it right up

I didn't attend any days as I was in short kecks.
It's the concept. It sums up my opinion, notwithstanding his context of being close to the trial, that I do not find the evidence suitably compelling to 'remove reasonable doubt'. He still did it though.

[Vertigo Swirl]

No. Just because I was not suitably persuaded as a virtual juror, doesn't mean the rest weren't. That's why there's 12 jurors. So the process was followed through as per the rule of law. No miscarriage.
A good defence barrister should always ask the jury to consider this very pertinent point when reaching a decision - has the evidence that the prosecution has posited removed any doubt of the defendant's guilt? A an example, in this case the prosecution built their case around the 2nd hand testimony of JM - and she wasn't exactly unimpeachable.

As you didn’t actually sit on the jury your opinion is really neither here nor there then is it, as you don’t really know what conclusion you would have reached had you been in that courtroom every single day, listening to every single word, observing every gulp, twitch, tear and smirk.

[Nicholas]

It's the concept.

The concept is this

‘In all honesty I would not have convicted Bamber on the evidence I heard‘ but I didn’t hear all the evidence 

David Connet’s ‘concept‘ on the case can be read in full here  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html

[The General]

As you didn’t actually sit on the jury your opinion is really neither here nor there then is it, as you don’t really know what conclusion you would have reached had you been in that courtroom every single day, listening to every single word, observing every gulp, twitch, tear and smirk.

Pertinent point.
But surely you knew all of that when you first commented on my initial assertion?
Given what I know now, being able to proffer an opinion on an internet forum, I agree with the general concept posited by the journalist and I don't believe the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed the judge's 'direction' would have probably boiled my p1ss.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Pertinent point.
But surely you knew all of that when you first commented on my initial assertion?
Given what I know now, being able to proffer an opinion on an internet forum, I agree with the general concept posited by the journalist and I don't believe the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed the judge's 'direction' would have probably boiled my p1ss.

I stand by my original point.  If you don’t believe that the case was proven beyond all reasonable doubt, then it follows you don’t believe justice was properly served.  I don’t see how you can argue that justice WAS served despite thr fact that the evidence did not prove Bamber’s guilt.  Your position does not make sense.

[Nicholas]

Indeed the judge's 'direction' would have probably boiled my p1ss.

What was it about the judges ‘direction’ that would have done as you say?

[Nicholas]

The concept is this

David Connet’s ‘concept‘ on the case can be read in full here  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html

Would be interested to hear David Connet’s thoughts on abusive relationships, especially ones where the person abusing displays traits of narcissism, machiavellianism, psychopathy & sadism

On JM Connet states,

‘Her evidence was controversial, punctuated frequently by tearful outbursts and upset to the point that Bamber's defence counsel, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, suggested it was almost impossible to cross-examine her. He did establish that she went to the police after Bamber had upset her by ending the relationship. Personally, I couldn't understand how she could be relied upon as a witness, but others, particularly women, thought the contradictions in her evidence made her more compelling.

Connet makes the claim that Geoffrey Rivlin QC ‘did establish that she went to the police after Bamber had upset her by ending the relationship‘

That’s his interpretation but not how things actually went down nor is it according to what JM wrote in her witness statement

[The General]

What was it about the judges ‘direction’ that would have done as you say?

Trying to find it. I've read it only once. Somewhere.

[Caroline]

Why does it? I'd be happy that I did my part and cast my vote according to the high bar of beyond reasonable doubt. There's two very separate concepts - do I think he's guilty? Yes. Do I think the prosecution persuaded me of that with the mainly circumstantial evidence provided in this instance? No. So therefore, I would have to find 'not guilty' according to the letter of the law, or according to the Blackstone formulation that 'it is better that Hundred guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer'.

If the evidence didn't convince you, what are you basing your notion of guilt on?

[Nicholas]

On JM Connet states,

‘Her evidence was controversial, punctuated frequently by tearful outbursts and upset to the point that Bamber's defence counsel, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, suggested it was almost impossible to cross-examine her. He did establish that she went to the police after Bamber had upset her by ending the relationship. Personally, I couldn't understand how she could be relied upon as a witness, but others, particularly women, thought the contradictions in her evidence made her more compelling.

And WHO are these ‘women’ Connet refers to ?

Has he made that up to flesh out his article or to cause some controversy ?

[The General]

I stand by my original point.  If you don’t believe that the case was proven beyond all reasonable doubt, then it follows you don’t believe justice was properly served.  I don’t see how you can argue that justice WAS served despite thr fact that the evidence did not prove Bamber’s guilt.  Your position does not make sense.

I'm afraid I disagree.
The concept is valid because I think he's guilty, just that the evidence set out by the prosecution didn't reach the threshold of removing all reasonable doubt, in my opinion. It may have been if I were a real juror I might have had a different view, but at least 2 of the original jurors also weren't happy with the weight of evidence - maybe more if it wasn't for the persuasive judge's direction.
But none of that means that the process wasn't followed, with the possible exception of the summing up, which may be construed as less than impartial.

[The General]

If the evidence didn't convince you, what are you basing your notion of guilt on?

Because I don't believe Sheila capable. So the prosecution posited only two potential perpetrators, Sheila or Jeremy. So pick one? No. You prove it to me that Jeremy did it, not that Sheila didn't. And the test is removal of reasonable doubt and it's a necessarily high bar. I don't believe that happened.