Reversing the burden of proof.
It is a common misconception that people have that the burden of proof is reversed at appeal. In the context of an alleged miscarriage of justice, people who support the conviction often ask for proof of innocence, as if that were required to justify the opinion that a man was wrongly convicted. It is, in fact, fairly standard pro guilt rhetoric.
I guess you never heard of innocent until proven guilty. What you call a misconception is in fact the law and such is based on rational thought.
The foundation of our Anglo-criminal system is that a jury (unless a jury trial is waived) decides whether someone is guilty of a felony. What good is such system if anytime you get convicted you just get another bite at the apple to try to convice a different gorup you are innocent simply because you lost? That would be no more fair than allowing the prosecution to automatically get a second bite at the apple because they failed and to get a chance to try again before a different jury.
To make sure a decision was fair appellate courts review convictions. However they don't just review anything and everything. The defense must identify a specific valid ground for appealing and must have evidence.
What grounds are there to appeal?
1) legal error (the judge made an error of law) which could have impacted the jury's decision. If the legal error is not one that reasonably would have impacted the jury decision then it is harmless error and doesn't call the verdict into question
2) the defense was deprived of exculpatory evidence that should have been disclosed and had they known about it would have brought it to the attention of the jury and it could have caused the jury to acquit.
3) the defense has learned about new evidence that it had no reasonable way to know about during the trial which is exculpatory and had such been brought to the attention of the jury it could have caused the jury to acquit.
New evidence can take many forms including DNA, recanted witness statments and much more. Whether it could have resulted in the jury acquitting requires looking in detail at the prosecution's evidence that swayed the jury and whether the new evidence undercuts the main evidence.
Jeremy's problem and in turn the problem of anyone who wants to establish his innocence is that there is no new evidence that actually eats away at the prosecution's case.
Jeremy defenders basically just criticize the jury for deciding that Julie was credible and all the other evidence was credible as well.
Saying Julie lied is not enough the jury heard that already and did not buy it. Saying the blood evidence was planted is not enough, the defense needs to prove it was planted but can't. Jeremy supporters can't even present evidence that establishes such to the satisfaction of lay people let alone an appeal court.
What kind of useless system would we have if people could just get a new trial because they didn't like the outcome of the first?
The only system that makes any sense is that you are regarded as guilty once convicted and the burden is on the defendant to prove there was a legal error made that affected the outcome or a factual error.
Proving an error of fact requires providing facts by definition. Saying something is possible doesn't prove something happened you need to prove a fact not make an unsupported allegation or posit unsupported potential scenarios.
Nickos and Caroline
Where the Bamber case is concerned, some pro guilt people such as Nickos and Caroline, at this site, actually support the view that Bamber is guilty, while at the same time freely admitting that they think that the evidence used to convict him was fabricated.
Caroline has made a statements like these on a many occasions. I quote from memory.
“Even if the silencer evidence was faked, that does not prove he is innocent.”
“I think he’s guilty, but that he was framed.”
There is to my mind a basic moral objection to this kind of talk when it becomes repetitive and part of a campaign to support the conviction against the supporters of the defendant who are trying their level best to succeed against so much that is stacked against them, including in this case manifest corruption.
Of course, a person could just happen to hold that opinion and just make that comment spontaneously, as it were. But I am not here talking about advocating rules against making such a comment, but only about the repeated use of that form of rhetoric as a propaganda tool, as it were, to help defend the conviction in the face of evidence which should lead to it being quashed.
It should always be remembered that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt and that the defendant is not required by law to prove his innocence.
The prosecution met its burden.
The burden is on the defense to prove the trial was unfair or the verdict was wrong.
Your talk about propaganda is laughable, if anything this site is a propaganda haven for Jeremy defenders.
Your argument that defenders should be free to make any unsupported claim desired without any need at all for evidence to support their claims is absurd.
Defenders need to prove with evidence that Jeremy is either innocent or did not get a fair trial. If defenders want to just post rhetoric or unsupported claims then ther eis no reaosn at all to pay their posts any heed at all. Unsupported claims are worth absoluting nothing. The only arguments of any value are those that have a rational basis in fact. That is why it is important to always make clear what the basis of your position is and whethe rit is just unsupported opinion or can establish it as fact.
Your attempt to say defenders have no need to disprove the evidence upon which Jeremy was convicted is simply outrageous and a joke. Innocent until proven guilty. He was proven guilty and now the tables turn.
In the meantime I have laid out my case against Jeremy in tremendous detail. No supporters have been able to dent it and no supporters have ever been able to lay out their own case with any such clarity let alone to establish they have a rational basis for believing Jeremy is innocent.
