Has your position changed?

[andrea]

no i think i meant 60% guilty, oh im confused now.

[sc82]

Hi Andrea - therefore reasonable doubt in your opinion is 60%.

In other words if you only thought Bamber 40% guilty, that would represent enough reasonable doubt to vote not guilty?

It must be such a difficult job for a real Jury member - you could either be letting a mass murderer go free or condemn and innocent man to life in prison - not a job for the faint hearted.

If we had the Scottish option of "not proven" in this country I believe JB would have walked, but not as an outright innocent man!

I'm Scottish and I think Not Proven is utterly pointless! You're either guilty or you're not. There shouldn't be a middle ground - if you have reasonable doubt then it has to be Not guilty in my view

[Newbury1]

Told you it wasn't my strong point, maths!

what do you think is more realistic? 90%

It's okay, it's not a test 

I don't know, but if I were to guess at a figure I would say even 60%, maybe 70% guilty could still leave enough room for reasonable doubt and for a vote of not guilty - its a very subjective point. There is no correct answer!

[campion]

        Yes, it has. Having read through various reports, trial transcripts and traced all the lawyers
  that have been involved through the 26 years, seen the misrepresentation of evidence, fabrication
  of evidence and lack of evidence, I am more than pleased to have joined this forum, as it has helped
  remove any doubts I had that this is the worst miscarriage of justice in the last 26 years.
         

[ngb1066]

It's okay, it's not a test 

I don't know, but if I were to guess at a figure I would say even 60%, maybe 70% guilty could still leave enough room for reasonable doubt and for a vote of not guilty - its a very subjective point. There is no correct answer!

Even 90% belief in guilt leaves 10% doubt and that is a reasonable doubt.  The verdict should then be not guilty.  You really need to be 99%+ sure of guilt to say that you are sure beyond reasonable doubt, in my view.  Judges will never put a figure on it.

 

[mike tesko]

Even 90% belief in guilt leaves 10% doubt and that is a reasonable doubt.  The verdict should then be not guilty.  You really need to be 99%+ sure of guilt to say that you are sure beyond reasonable doubt, in my view.  Judges will never put a figure on it.

In my opinion, jurors ought to asked on a percentage basis why they returned a verdict of guilty and if it is not 100% each juror should find the defendant 'Not guilty' because there is some doubt, in my view it should be 100% guilty, or nothing at all...

 arrive at this conclusion because a judge always tells a jury that if they have any doubt whatsoever, they should find a defendant not guilty?

Perhaps the warning to the jury by the judge should be altered or changed into - if there is less than a 100% chance of guilt, you must find the defendant 'Guilty'...

[Gillian]

As you may or may not know I am new to this forum although I have viewed it recently on quite a number of occasions as a guest. 

I have read all the information on the official Jeremy Bamber website and receive all the latest information on twitter.  As a guest on this forum I have been able to read most of the information on this site though obviously the benefit of becoming a member is so the relevant photographs and documentation can be viewed as well.

My opinion at the moment and has been for some time that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and that Sheila Caffell was responsible however I am going to take some time to re-read all of the information provided on this forum but this time with the benefit of the photographs and documents.

What I do believe 100% however is that he did not receive a fair trial so at the very least should be given the opportunity of a re-trial and that all of the documentation held under PII should be made available sooner rather than later so that an informed decision can be made by everyone involved.

I have already made my thoughts about 'Z' known in previous posts but I do think that until Mike or 'Z' is in a position to divulge more information regarding what they supposedly know and/or release the photographs/documentation that is continuously referred to then this information, in my opinion, will not be relevant in me reaching an ultimate decision of guilty or innocent.  I am going to concentrate on the facts and leave the rest alone.

[Roch]

Can I have one of your cakes please Gillian?

[Gillian]

Of course you can rochford.  Which one do you fancy? 

[Roch]

Of course you can rochford.  Which one do you fancy? 

I'll have the turquoise one at the front please  :D

[andrea]

I'll have the turquoise one at the front please  :D

you might get fat roch.

[Roch]

you might get fat roch.

It's a bit late for that Andrea.  I'm carrying a death sentence around my waist area already 

[Gillian]

It's yours rochford.  Enjoy!!! 

[Newbury1]

Even 90% belief in guilt leaves 10% doubt and that is a reasonable doubt.  The verdict should then be not guilty.  You really need to be 99%+ sure of guilt to say that you are sure beyond reasonable doubt, in my view.  Judges will never put a figure on it.

The problem of course with this case (of which there are many) is that if one finds JB not guilty by way of reasonable doubt, then by default SC is guilty.

Whilst there may be a case for reasonable doubt applied to JB's case, it's the same for SC. There is still reasonable doubt that SC did not do it - stale mate!!

[Roch]

It's yours rochford.  Enjoy!!! 

Cheers 

Regarding the topic of this thread.  It seems to me that in the minds of a considerable amount of forum members, by posting about (Z), Mike Tesko has introduced further doubt in relation to his previous claims regarding the now infamous 'photo on the bed'.
 
'Ali Bongo' is oft cited as yet further proof of Mike relying upon deceits.  But 'Ali Bongo' wasn't pro Bamber.  He actually introduced doubt about the innocence of Jeremy Bamber. 

If you remove 'Z' and you remove 'the photo on the bed' ... that removal doesn't even make a dint in to the case for the defence or the case for Jeremy Bamber's innocence.  Since so far, neither the photo nor Z have been verifiable or referenced by the official defence anyway.  All the other doubts and anomalies that were there, still remain.

So forgive me, if I don't rush in to the open arms of the guilty camp.