Jeremy's Alibi...

[mertol22]

I assume you mean paralympics!  I'm not sure too many people would like or accept them being referred to as the "disabled games"!!
[/quote
yes my intentions were there , the point i was trying to make is i feel the royal mail have already done well out of it.

[mertol22]

Yes I am hearing you Andrea and have understood your posts and you are of course entitled to hold your opinions. The only thing I object to is when folk in order to reinforce their opinion that Bamber is guilty emphasise continually that two appeal courts and the ccrc all uphold his conviction. Possible on the pretext of conveying the thought that they all see nothing wrong with the original conviction at all.

When i see clear orderly laid down evidence that JB is guilty beyond compare i will join the guilty camp, i offer i have made earlier this week, my question to anti posters is very simple, if it was your relative on that day facing almost certain death in jail would you have no issues that the crimescene was badly handled and contaminated , and knowing it was had a wish for the trial to proceed.
When in fact that is not what aqctually happens. If each appeal court when over all the original evidence (and this view is also held by some of the opposite persuasion to me) then most of it would be thrown out as unsusable or contaminated.

But that isn't what they do. The only thing they do is look to see if the proposed new evidence is enough to overturn that original conviction. So to my mind it is futile to use the argument that all these appeal courts in fact fully endorce Bamber's guilt. Because it doesn't.

I feel that I must again indicate where I stand in this case. The only reaqson that I see Bamber's conviction as being a miscarriage of justice is the fact that (1) I believe that the original evidence was contaminated and should not have been used as evidence. And (2) I do not believe that the evidence of Julie Mugford should have been used either. Why? Because (a) She was possible lying? and (b) She stood to benefit from his conviction. And (c) She was not charged with being an accessory after the fact.

Those are the only reasons that I believe this to be a miscarriage of justice. I have no feelings of goodwill towards Bamber himself. But if the trial was what I consider a fair one and that he was "fairly" convicted, then I would not be here defending his case today. I am no lover of murderers or child killers. If I truly believed him to be guilty then I would spit him out immediately and you would not see me for dust I can assure you. But as long as there is this niggling doubt in my mind I need to see justice done and I don't believe that it has been in this case.

[-Harters-]

I'm just asking if you know, being a person with a legal background why it is we traditionally have 12 people in a jury as opposed to any other number?

According to my mate "Google":

It might date back to Aethelred's Wantage code, other claims seem to indicate it follows biblical traditions, (eg, 12 disciples).

Yet more claims suggest it is Islamic in origin.

Some countries have different numbers for a jury.

[ngb1066]

According to my mate "Google":

It might date back to Aethelred's Wantage code, other claims seem to indicate it follows biblical traditions, (eg, 12 disciples).

Yet more claims suggest it is Islamic in origin.

Some countries have different numbers for a jury.

We always had 15 for a grand jury.

[-Harters-]

We always had 15 for a grand jury.

They have 15 in Scotland as well don't they?

[petey]

I'm just asking if you know, being a person with a legal background why it is we traditionally have 12 people in a jury as opposed to any other number?

I have no idea to be honest.

I do know the modern jury trial evolved from as early as the 12th century when juries were usually made up of 6 or 12 men.

[petey]

You've pulled me up on this before, although I have seen it described as a certainty range of 98 or 99% when assigning a numerical value to the term "beyond reasonable doubt", all be it in reference to a US definition rather than in the UK.

Never having served on a jury, can I ask if the jury would be advised on the definition of the term "beyond reasonable doubt", in words if not in percentages?

It must also be linked to the burden of proof which rests with the prosecution, unless a defendant offers a defence.

I'm not sure I like percentages being used to describe how sure somebody is of something, I'm not 99.9% sure that different people can accurately quantify their feelings in this way.

Sorry but I work in commercial / corporate field so do not have intimate knowledge of judges directions to juries regarding reasonable doubt.

All I can say is of the many many people I have come across in the legal field over my years in practice, nobody has ever openly stated that 99% is enough to convict and the vast majority air towards over 99.9%. No judge will ever direct a jury to consider percentages tho, which are of course arbitrary.

Basically to pass a guilty judgement you have to have no doubt at all that the accused is guilty (barring some unreasonable doubt!)

There are few passages in the English law reports better known than that in the speech of Viscount Sankey, the Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords appeal case of Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, when he said:
“Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt … . If at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is any reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given either by the prosecution or the prisoner ... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to anacquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.”

[ngb1066]

They have 15 in Scotland as well don't they?

Yes they do, and they accept majority verdicts down to 8:7.

[petey]

I assume you mean paralympics!  I'm not sure too many people would like or accept them being referred to as the "disabled games"!!
[/quote
yes my intentions were there , the point i was trying to make is i feel the royal mail have already done well out of it.

Regardless of your intentions or what point you were trying to make about the Royal Mail, I was stating that calling them "the disabled games," to me is massively disrespectful.

[-Harters-]

Sorry but I work in commercial / corporate field so do not have intimate knowledge of judges directions to juries regarding reasonable doubt.

All I can say is of the many many people I have come across in the legal field over my years in practice, nobody has ever openly stated that 99% is enough to convict and the vast majority air towards over 99.9%. No judge will ever direct a jury to consider percentages tho, which are of course arbitrary.

Basically to pass a guilty judgement you have to have no doubt at all that the accused is guilty (barring some unreasonable doubt!)

There are few passages in the English law reports better known than that in the speech of Viscount Sankey, the Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords appeal case of Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, when he said:
“Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt … . If at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is any reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given either by the prosecution or the prisoner ... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to anacquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.”

Thanks Petey.

The part in red intrigues me, I'm not sure if you mean what you have written, or more likely I'm misinterpreting what you have written.

The passing of Judgement is carried out by a Judge, based on the verdict of a Jury (if present), so who needs to have no doubt (barring unreasonable doubt), the Judge and the Jury or just the Judge?

I guess what I really mean, is that despite the legal opinion of what is or is not reasonable doubt amongst legal professionals, in percentage terms or otherwise, a Jury is by design made up of lay people who would be unlikely to know the definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" unless advised, and even after being advised would likely be understood and interpreted individually, the understanding amongst jurors would then quite likely be inconsistent.

I know I'm rambling, and probably not making a great deal of sense, but I couldn't tell you the difference between being 90% sure of something, or 95%, I most certainly wouldn't be able to distinguish between 99.5% and 99.9%. Maybe it's just me and I'm not very good at applying percentages.

In fact I think I've completely forgotten what my point was. 

[-Harters-]

Yes they do, and they accept majority verdicts down to 8:7.

Really? That's a massive difference, only 53% of Jurors are needed to come to a decision guilty verdict then, as opposed to 83% of Jurors in England.

I wonder if cases held here would have had a very different outcome if held in Scotland.

[grahameb]

Sorry but I work in commercial / corporate field so do not have intimate knowledge of judges directions to juries regarding reasonable doubt.

All I can say is of the many many people I have come across in the legal field over my years in practice, nobody has ever openly stated that 99% is enough to convict and the vast majority air towards over 99.9%. No judge will ever direct a jury to consider percentages tho, which are of course arbitrary.

Basically to pass a guilty judgement you have to have no doubt at all that the accused is guilty (barring some unreasonable doubt!)

There are few passages in the English law reports better known than that in the speech of Viscount Sankey, the Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords appeal case of Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, when he said:
“Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt … . If at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is any reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given either by the prosecution or the prisoner ... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to anacquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.”

I personally believe that the law is at fault as regards murder trials. If comeone is in trial for his life then I believe that he/she should be convicted on a majority verdict whatever that majority be. The verdict should be imo unanimous.

[petey]

Thanks Petey.

The part in red intrigues me, I'm not sure if you mean what you have written, or more likely I'm misinterpreting what you have written.

The passing of Judgement is carried out by a Judge, based on the verdict of a Jury (if present), so who needs to have no doubt (barring unreasonable doubt), the Judge and the Jury or just the Judge?

I guess what I really mean, is that despite the legal opinion of what is or is not reasonable doubt amongst legal professionals, in percentage terms or otherwise, a Jury is by design made up of lay people who would be unlikely to know the definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" unless advised, and even after being advised would likely be understood and interpreted individually, the understanding amongst jurors would then quite likely be inconsistent.

I know I'm rambling, and probably not making a great deal of sense, but I couldn't tell you the difference between being 90% sure of something, or 95%, I most certainly wouldn't be able to distinguish between 99.5% and 99.9%. Maybe it's just me and I'm not very good at applying percentages.

In fact I think I've completely forgotten what my point was. 

Apologies for my sloppy typinng!

I meant to state that: "for a jury to pass a guilty verdict they have to have no doubt at all that the accused is guilty (barring some unreasonable doubt!)"

I agree with you that the law is very inconsistent in that it is very difficult for you to state whether you 99% or 95% or 99.9% think that someone is guilty and it can be difficult for a lay person to interpret "beyond reasonable doubt" without clear instruction.

I find it mildly amusing on this forum when people state quite clearly that JB is guilty and they 90-95% 'know' he is guilty.  By definition this means that if these people who are so convinced of JB's guilt served on his trial jury, they would have a duty to find him NOT GUILTY!

[-Harters-]

Apologies for my sloppy typinng!

I meant to state that: "for a jury to pass a guilty verdict they have to have no doubt at all that the accused is guilty (barring some unreasonable doubt!)"

I agree with you that the law is very inconsistent in that it is very difficult for you to state whether you 99% or 95% or 99.9% think that someone is guilty and it can be difficult for a lay person to interpret "beyond reasonable doubt" without clear instruction.

I find it mildly amusing on this forum when people state quite clearly that JB is guilty and they 90-95% 'know' he is guilty.  By definition this means that if these people who are so convinced of JB's guilt served on his trial duty, they would have a duty to find him NOT GUILTY!

Yes I can see why that would be amusing. 

I think percentages are incorrectly applied, I don't think an opinion based on a written definition can accurately be displayed as a percentage, and even if it could, then it could not be done so consistently.

[petey]

Yes I can see why that would be amusing. 

I think percentages are incorrectly applied, I don't think an opinion based on a written definition can accurately be displayed as a percentage, and even if it could, then it could not be done so consistently.

I would say that I 99% don't fully understand what you are saying, but think I 99.9% agree with it!