I think and respect everyone’s opinions, even yours where your inclined to think him guilty, yet post of his innocence. I’ve never known Steve or Adam say or believe him innocent? Many posters have changed stance, even Mike, he’s always believed the police shot Sheila, but his firm view being Bamber shot the other four.
Please pull the other leg, my left ankle hurts.
I have never stated Jeremy is innocent, and unless something extraordinary happens like Anne Eaton falling down on her knees and saying, 'Yes, Uncle Bobby and Peter put the blood in the silencer. I go to church every Sunday now and the Lord Saviour has forgiven me!', it's rather unlikely I will ever consider Jeremy innocent. In fact, come to think of it, even if it is proved that the blood was planted (I still think it could be proved, which is not to say I think it was planted), that does not mean Jeremy is factually innocent. He could still be guilty, and I rather suspect he is.
I don't post of Jeremy's innocence, rather I start from the
presumption of innocence, a different thing. My approach to this case, like all cases, is summarised in the words of Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, Q.C., in his closing speech for the defence in R v Adams. I suggest you read it:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10311.0.htmlAs I never tire of reminding people, the presumption of innocence is the only way to approach the case in a fair and neutral manner. Of course, at the criminal appeal level, the presumption is formally reversed into a presumption of guilt, because Jeremy stands convicted by a jury, but even an appeal judge will, for practical reasons, begin with the presumption of innocence, simply because it's the only way to sensibly test the Crown's case on the appeal points raised, whatever they may be. By doing so, the court builds a conservative picture of how sustainable the convictions are at that point.
For me, what the presumption of innocence translates to is that, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, I give Jeremy the benefit of any doubt. That's not because I like Jeremy or I'm his mate. I'm not. I don't like child killers. I repeat, the reason I do this is because it is the only way to test the strength of the Crown's case.
I expect all this will fall on deaf ears, but I hope it will make sense to somebody.
Turning to you and the other dogmatic guilters and your emoticons, I did not say that any of you previously claimed or affected to believe Jeremy innocent. As you nearly-always do, you twist what I say into something slightly different, so that it suits you rhetorically. It's a sign of intellectual dishonesty to do this and doesn't reassure me about the validity of anything you say.