Tabloids - V - Broadsheets

[The General]

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.

It's not altruism; it's doing your civic duty and I'll tell you why.
Because dissenting voices maintain rigour in the system.

[Admin]

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"?

The logistics of what occurred excluded Sheila so that only left Jeremy Bamber. Add to this the testimony of Julie Mugford and the jury really weren't left with much of a decision. The difficulty is the 'beyond reasonable doubt' requisite. Ultimately however, it all stood on who believed who and obviously Julie was very believable.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

I guess it depends how you are interpreting "a miscarriage of justice" then doesn't it? I know for example you don't have a problem with the police kicking people in the head and asking questions later.  Some might consider that unjust, not to mention unlawful, others might consider such "rough justice" perfectly acceptable.
Without re-reading all your posts on the subject I was under the impression that you felt the evidence did not prove Bamber's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, but that as far as you're concerned that doesn't really matter because you "know" he did it, and therefore justice was served (if I have misunderstood your position feel free to insult my intelligence again).  People like G-Unit (who claims to be completely unbiased wrt to Bamber's guilt or innocence) would presumably disagree and that is the basis of all their hard work, research and determination to get JB a re-trial at the very least. 

[Caroline]

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"?

So (I'll ask  again) So, had you been on the jury, would have found him innocent even though you believed he was guilty?

[Vertigo Swirl]

So (I'll ask  again) So, had you been on the jury, would have found him innocent even though you believed he was guilty?

I think you meant to ask the squirmy ol' General that question...

[Angelo222]

I think you meant to ask the squirmy ol' General that question...

Let's be nice 

[The General]

I think you meant to ask the squirmy ol' General that question...

Hey, less of the 'ol'.

[Caroline]

I think you meant to ask the squirmy ol' General that question...

I did indeed!

[The General]

So (I'll ask  again) So, had you been on the jury, would have found him innocent even though you believed he was guilty?

The squirmy answer is don't know.
It could literally come down to what flavour crisps they gave us with the butties at dinner time.
As someone mentioned earlier, I could have been blown away by JM's emotive and consistent testimony face to face.

[Caroline]

Hey, less of the 'ol'.

So (I'll ask  again) So, had you been on the jury, would have found him innocent even though you believed he was guilty?

[The General]

So (I'll ask  again) So, had you been on the jury, would have found him innocent even though you believed he was guilty?

See above.

[Caroline]

The squirmy answer is don't know.
It could literally come down to what flavour crisps they gave us with the butties at dinner time.
As someone mentioned earlier, I could have been blown away by JM's emotive and consistent testimony face to face.

That's not really an answer is it? You said that you don't think the evidence proved him guilty BRD but that you think he's guilty anyway. So on that basis, sat there on the jury, thinking he's guilty but not being impressed with the evidence would you find him guilty or not guilty?

[The General]

That's not really an answer is it? You said that you don't think the evidence proved him guilty BRD but that you think he's guilty anyway. So on that basis, sat there on the jury, thinking he's guilty but not being impressed with the evidence would you find him guilty or not guilty?

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!

[Vertigo Swirl]

Let's be nice 

That was being nice.  You should see my nasty.

[The General]

That was being nice.  You should see my nasty.

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