Tabloids - V - Broadsheets

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

Do you have reasonable doubt about the conviction?  If not, then the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt.  If you do, then you would have to conclude that the only fair and just outcome would have be a Not Guilty verdict.  It's as simple as that.

[Nicholas]

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.

What was the focus of the judges direction - can you recall?

Paras 344, 370 etc here http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[Nicholas]

Paras 344, 370 etc here http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Re para

344. When the judge dealt with this aspect of the matter in his summing up (Transcript page 19C), he said:

"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar,

Bamber habitually attempts to project his own lies onto others and is renowned for attempting to assassinate individuals characters

He began to lie to me and become more aggressive towards me......

My guess is he also called Aunt Agatha a liar

[The General]

Do you have reasonable doubt about the conviction?  If not, then the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt.  If you do, then you would have to conclude that the only fair and just outcome would have be a Not Guilty verdict.  It's as simple as that.

Well at least you've dialled back from: because I wasn't happy with the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt for me, ergo I automatically think it's a miscarriage.
I don't have any 'reasonable doubt about the conviction', which is a different concept from me having not been convinced of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the evidence posited, as 10 out of 12 jurors was enough.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well at least you've dialled back from: because I wasn't happy with the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt for me, ergo I automatically think it's a miscarriage.
I don't have any 'reasonable doubt about the conviction', which is a different concept from me having not been convinced of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the evidence posited, as 10 out of 12 jurors was enough.

Semantics.

[The General]

Semantics.

Or an obscure concept which you cannot grasp, or you've just grasped but refuse to admit.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Or an obscure concept which you cannot grasp, or you've just grasped but refuse to admit.

Yeah, I cannot grasp it coz I is as thik as too short planx innit.  Take your ball and kick it against a wall, I’m not playing with you anymore.

[The General]

Yeah, I cannot grasp it coz I is as thik as too short planx innit.  Take your ball and kick it against a wall, I’m not playing with you anymore.

That's a crap poem.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That's a crap poem.

That’s a crap response.

[Caroline]

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.

So, hd you been on the jury, you would have found him innocent even though you believed he was guilty?

[Vertigo Swirl]

So, hd you been on the jury, you would have found him innocent even though you believed he was guilty?

This was my point too, but apparently I’m too dumb to understand the General’s nuanced argument.

[The General]

This was my point too, but apparently I’m too dumb to understand the General’s nuanced argument.

Come on, don't be so hard on yourself.
In answer to the question - I don't know, it's particularly hypothetical as I wasn't on jury.
But, as I stated yesterday, the high bar in my opinion wasn't met.
I suppose the only factor that might have swayed me, hypothetically, is the fact that it's almost certain that one of two people did it, and also as I stated yesterday, it's very unlikely Sheila did. But the prosecution didn't persuade me of that, I did, using common sense. I'm guessing and there's no room for a guess when you're a juror - you're instructed that you have to be sure that the evidence has removed doubt.

What I would say, JM's testimony aside, if the prosecution are depending on the silencer as some sort of definitive proof, then I'm afraid the case is weakened as a result.

But he still did it, the horrible, little ****

[Vertigo Swirl]

Come on, don't be so hard on yourself.
In answer to the question - I don't know, it's particularly hypothetical as I wasn't on jury.
But, as I stated yesterday, the high bar in my opinion wasn't met.
I suppose the only factor that might have swayed me, hypothetically, is the fact that it's almost certain that one of two people did it, and also as I stated yesterday, it's very unlikely Sheila did. But the prosecution didn't persuade me of that, I did, using common sense. I'm guessing and there's no room for a guess when you're a juror - you're instructed that you have to be sure that the evidence has removed doubt.

What I would say, JM's testimony aside, if the prosecution are depending on the silencer as some sort of definitive proof, then I'm afraid the case is weakened as a result.

But he still did it, the horrible, little ****

Do you have any grounds whatsoever for "reasonable doubt"?  If not, why not?  "Sheila's unlikely to have done it" just isn't good enough in a court of law, and if you had been on the jury you'd have had to have come up with a bit more of a convincing argument than that with your fellow jurors.  You seem to be of the mind that there really isn't one, and it all rests on what you believe about the abilities of Sheila to have done it or not.  If that is the case then how can one fail to come to the conclusion that the system failed and he should have been found "Not Guilty"?

[APRIL]

Come on, don't be so hard on yourself.
In answer to the question - I don't know, it's particularly hypothetical as I wasn't on jury.
But, as I stated yesterday, the high bar in my opinion wasn't met.
I suppose the only factor that might have swayed me, hypothetically, is the fact that it's almost certain that one of two people did it, and also as I stated yesterday, it's very unlikely Sheila did. But the prosecution didn't persuade me of that, I did, using common sense. I'm guessing and there's no room for a guess when you're a juror - you're instructed that you have to be sure that the evidence has removed doubt.

What I would say, JM's testimony aside, if the prosecution are depending on the silencer as some sort of definitive proof, then I'm afraid the case is weakened as a result.

But he still did it, the horrible, little ****

It would be taking altruism a little too far, wouldn't it, to believe, after working through it intelligently, someone guilty, but declare them innocent because the prosecution didn't cross T's and dot I's in the way you believed they should.

[The General]

Do you have any grounds whatsoever for "reasonable doubt"?  If not, why not?  "Sheila's unlikely to have done it" just isn't good enough in a court of law, and if you had been on the jury you'd have had to have come up with a bit more of a convincing argument than that with your fellow jurors.  You seem to be of the mind that there really isn't one, and it all rests on what you believe about the abilities of Sheila to have done it or not.  If that is the case then how can one fail to come to the conclusion that the system failed and he should have been found "Not Guilty"?

Go on, read it. Seriously. Just re-read the original post. I gave at least two reasons for the evidence not reaching the required bar.
As for your 2nd point, and I'll stress again, there are two very distinct states of being:
1. I think he's guilty
2. But the prosecution failed to provide me sufficient evidence (in our contemporaneous hypothetical jury situation) to stop me from having to guess.
So even if I vote 'not guilty' because the judge told me that if I have any doubt then I should, it doesn't mean I think there's been a miscarriage, I'm just doing what I've been instructed. It's a common statement that is rattled out ad infinitum in these cases 'if you have any doubt whatsoever, then you must find the defendant 'not guilty', etc, etc. It's the very basis of our adversarial system. They don't want you to guess, toss a coin, have a pop - yes, use your intuition, but you have to be sure.