Tabloids - V - Broadsheets

[Caroline]

Not being impressed? You mean not being convinced of the case against and the evidence provided?
As I said earlier, I'd have to exercise a judgement that I shouldn't at that point.
The prosecution's sole job is to convince me, the court appointed juror and remove all doubt. If they don't do that, then I should return a verdict of not guilty - that's how it works.
So now in context of our hypothetical placing of me in the jury, I would have the benefit of listening and watching JM's testimony first hand, which I don't right now, reading case material many years later. So maybe her evidence now becomes enough to remove my doubt.
But if they give us Prawn Cocktail crisps, then to hell with the judicial system!

I am well aware of how it works and don't need a lesson, people aren't just influenced by the evidence, there are many other factors at play and  I don't believe for one  second (crisps or no crisps) that if you thought Bamber was guilty but weren't at all 'impressed' by the courts handling of the case/evidence; that you would find him innocent - regardless of what is 'supposed' to happen.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I haven't heard that pet name for it before.

And you can stop that flirting right now.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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.

You’re twisting and making assumptions.

You never met the jury. How can you say “AT LEAST 2 of the jurors weren’t happy with the evidence - maybe more if it wasn’t for the judge’s persuasive direction” when you have NO IDEA what went on in that jurors room?

Like it or lump it, the FACT is TEN jurors found him GUILTY.

How do you know those two undecided ones simply weren’t sure and couldn’t decide?

How do you know those two weren’t simple, naive, gullible?

How do you know they DID think he was guilty then changed their minds because they were soft and unsure?

You have no idea — so why make assumptions to suit your own state of mind?

You claim you’re not a supporter of his, but the dreadful way you insult me and others who know he’s guilty as hell, suggests you aren’t being honest.

It’s obvious he’s guilty, the circumstantial evidence is OVERWHELMING. Many people are found guilty on circumstantial evidence. Take the Yorkshire Ripper — what concrete evidence did they have that he was guilty? Are you saying “Ah, well, I know he WAS. But I wouldn’t have found him guilty because there wasn’t enough proof without doubt. And far better to let 100 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man”

Are you being serious?!!

Aren’t you able to detect when someone is lying? Read between the lines? Can you not see by his statements how he lied and contradicted himself? How it was impossible for Nevill to have rang Jeremy...can you really not see that?

[The General]

You’re twisting and making assumptions.

You never met the jury. How can you say “AT LEAST 2 of the jurors weren’t happy with the evidence - maybe more if it wasn’t for the judge’s persuasive direction” when you have NO IDEA what went on in that jurors room?

Like it or lump it, the FACT is TEN jurors found him GUILTY.

How do you know those two undecided ones simply weren’t sure and couldn’t decide?

How do you know those two weren’t simple, naive, gullible?

How do you know they DID think he was guilty then changed their minds because they were soft and unsure?

You have no idea — so why make assumptions to suit your own state of mind?

You claim you’re not a supporter of his, but the dreadful way you insult me and others who know he’s guilty as hell, suggests you aren’t being honest.

It’s obvious he’s guilty, the circumstantial evidence is OVERWHELMING. Many people are found guilty on circumstantial evidence. Take the Yorkshire Ripper — what concrete evidence did they have that he was guilty? Are you saying “Ah, well, I know he WAS. But I wouldn’t have found him guilty because there wasn’t enough proof without doubt. And far better to let 100 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man”

Are you being serious?!!

Aren’t you able to detect when someone is lying? Read between the lines? Can you not see by his statements how he lied and contradicted himself? How it was impossible for Nevill to have rang Jeremy...can you really not see that?

CBA reading all that. It's useful that you capitalise where you're shouting at the keyboard the most though, so I did catch 'AT LEAST 2 of the jurors' i.e. two of them found him not guilty.

And skimming over the rest; you missed the point. Big time.

....and you're calling me a liar and I insult you 'dreadfully'? Show me. You won't, of course, because you rarely provide cites, mainly because they don't exist, with you mashing the keyboard with fury - as above.

Come back with a few examples of me lying, dear, when you've composed yourself.

[G-Unit]

You’re twisting and making assumptions.

You never met the jury. How can you say “AT LEAST 2 of the jurors weren’t happy with the evidence - maybe more if it wasn’t for the judge’s persuasive direction” when you have NO IDEA what went on in that jurors room?

Like it or lump it, the FACT is TEN jurors found him GUILTY.

How do you know those two undecided ones simply weren’t sure and couldn’t decide?

How do you know those two weren’t simple, naive, gullible?

How do you know they DID think he was guilty then changed their minds because they were soft and unsure?

You have no idea — so why make assumptions to suit your own state of mind?

You claim you’re not a supporter of his, but the dreadful way you insult me and others who know he’s guilty as hell, suggests you aren’t being honest.

It’s obvious he’s guilty, the circumstantial evidence is OVERWHELMING. Many people are found guilty on circumstantial evidence. Take the Yorkshire Ripper — what concrete evidence did they have that he was guilty? Are you saying “Ah, well, I know he WAS. But I wouldn’t have found him guilty because there wasn’t enough proof without doubt. And far better to let 100 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man”

Are you being serious?!!

Aren’t you able to detect when someone is lying? Read between the lines? Can you not see by his statements how he lied and contradicted himself? How it was impossible for Nevill to have rang Jeremy...can you really not see that?

You speak of facts, but the fact is that two jurors weren't prepared to vote guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

[APRIL]

You speak of facts, but the fact is that two jurors weren't prepared to vote guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

You might be amazed to learn that some jurors end up with suffering something close to PTSD whilst others may be totally dismissive of the experience. One lady told me of a self appointed jury foreman who told them it was obvious what the verdict was so get a move on because he'd told his wife he'd be home by a certain time!!! Another still ponders over whether she'd made the right decision, made years ago, when she did jury service. I'm as curious as the next person when it comes to wondering how Jeremy's jurors feel, now, about their decision. Incidentally, had the lady who suffered the bossy foreman agreed to be on the jury of the next trial -she declined when told it could last three weeks- it turns out it would have been the Bamber case.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Those two jurors may have been conflicted in the manner of the General and his exemplary high standards of justice, i.e: know he’s guilty but don’t believe the evidence proves it beyond all reasonable doubt. 

[The General]

Those two jurors may have been conflicted in the manner of the General and his exemplary high standards of justice, i.e: know he’s guilty but don’t believe the evidence proves it beyond all reasonable doubt.

What's wrong with that? Isn't that the point?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

You speak of facts, but the fact is that two jurors weren't prepared to vote guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

And the fact is — that made no difference

The TEN intelligent jurors DID find him GUILTY.

Accept it and get on with your life...

[Aunt Agatha]

And the fact is — that made no difference

The TEN intelligent jurors DID find him GUILTY.

Accept it and get on with your life...

You’re clutching at straws. We won’t give up questioning this MOJ. 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

CBA reading all that. It's useful that you capitalise where you're shouting at the keyboard the most though, so I did catch 'AT LEAST 2 of the jurors' i.e. two of them found him not guilty.

And skimming over the rest; you missed the point. Big time.

....and you're calling me a liar and I insult you 'dreadfully'? Show me. You won't, of course, because you rarely provide cites, mainly because they don't exist, with you mashing the keyboard with fury - as above.

Come back with a few examples of me lying, dear, when you've composed yourself.

I didn’t realise you took so much note of all my posts — I usually just scan over yours quickly...

Only reason I capitalise is that when I use the italics etc on here it doesn’t seem to work. If you’re bothered by capitals skip my posts, like I usually skip yours. Easy.

The ONLY reason I’m not prepared to hunt YOUR posts is that I find you boring, dull and irrelevant. I’m only on here for a few minutes as I’m going back into my garden to have lunch and then sunbathe...far better than looking at posts of someone  I never read anyway

You can look yourself and find them....that’ll keep you entertained, I’m sure 😂

And as for me not posting cites I’ve gone through that previously. Besides, unlike some on here, I have no REASON to lie. I haven’t been convicted of murder. I’m not trying to help worm a mass murderer out of the cage he belongs in. What the hell would I need to lie about?

Incidentally, don’t flatter yourself — you could never instil fury in me, you’re of no significance to me at all. I couldn’t care less what your opinion is of me: you seem to dislike several people so I don’t take your problem personally. I understand you 😌

[The General]

I didn’t realise you took so much note of all my posts — I usually just scan over yours quickly...

Only reason I capitalise is that when I use the italics etc on here it doesn’t seem to work. If you’re bothered by capitals skip my posts, like I usually skip yours. Easy.

The ONLY reason I’m not prepared to hunt YOUR posts is that I find you boring, dull and irrelevant. I’m only on here for a few minutes as I’m going back into my garden to have lunch and then sunbathe...far better than looking at posts of someone  I never read anyway

You can look yourself and find them....that’ll keep you entertained, I’m sure 😂

And as for me not posting cites I’ve gone through that previously. Besides, unlike some on here, I have no REASON to lie. I haven’t been convicted of murder. I’m not trying to help worm a mass murderer out of the cage he belongs in. What the hell would I need to lie about?

Incidentally, don’t flatter yourself — you could never instil fury in me, you’re of no significance to me at all. I couldn’t care less what your opinion is of me: you seem to dislike several people so I don’t take your problem personally. I understand you 😌

I did read this one. It's on a par with you convincing yourself I was Holly. There's every chance you still think I am. So that's the level of intellect we're dealing with, notwithstanding the 138 IQ points you were awarded by a clickbait website.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I did read this one. It's on a par with you convincing yourself I was Holly. There's every chance you still think I am. So that's the level of intellect we're dealing with, notwithstanding the 138 IQ points you were awarded by a clickbait website.

Perhaps your memory is starting to fail you, but I took my Mensa test at a university room in central London

From what you’ve said it suggests you’ve possibly been fooled by click-bait websites; I’ve seen mad ones pop up on Facebook. Please don’t get sucked in, General, and start devoting all your brain power to taking IQ tests in a quest to get a better result — I’m finding your wrath amusing 😌

[ISpyWithMyEye]

You speak of facts, but the fact is that two jurors weren't prepared to vote guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

And TEN jurors DID 😊

[Nicholas]

You’re clutching at straws. We won’t give up questioning this MOJ.

Who’s this ‘we’ you keep referring to ?

You don’t appear to be questioning the facts of the case AA but you do seem to have come up with some wild conspiracy theory all on your own