reasonable doubt

[Jane]

But Caroline if the silencer was not used then what an earth can you trust as reliable is the case? If the most damning evidence and central pillar of the crown case was based on a forgery then how can you or anyone else trust all the other evidence? If you think the silencer was not used then that means a conspiracy has taken place to bolster the prosecution. That means nothing in this case is reliable if conspiracy and corruption is at its core you cannot trust anything the prosecution sais or does.

It MIGHT mean all you claim......................but it doesn't make Jeremy innocent.

[David1819]

It MIGHT mean all you claim......................but it doesn't make Jeremy innocent.

But it would make Jeremy not guilty.

You don't have to prove innocence the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

[Stephanie]

But Caroline if the silencer was not used then what an earth can you trust as reliable is the case? If the most damning evidence and central pillar of the crown case was based on a forgery then how can you or anyone else trust all the other evidence? If you think the silencer was not used then that means a conspiracy has taken place to bolster the prosecution. That means nothing in this case is reliable if conspiracy and corruption is at its core you cannot trust anything the prosecution sais or does.

You sound like JB... 

It is for the reasons you have claimed (among others) that I believe him to be guilty.

You make a good argument but that's all it is..putting your spin (or JB's) on it to make it sound like the evidence is unreliable. But it also shows projection on your part imo and shows where your morals lie. My opinion.

I do believe there are flaws in this case but that doesn't make him innocent.

[Jane]

But it would make Jeremy not guilty.

You don't have to prove innocence the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Right, it's now come down to an acceptance of his guilt but a desire to set him free at all costs, has it? I believe the prosecution found proof of him being guilty back in 1986, didn't they? Or did the jury find him guilty for the fun of it?

[Stephanie]

"The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented."

[Stephanie]

But it would make Jeremy not guilty.

You don't have to prove innocence the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

He was found guilty!!

[Stephanie]

"The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented."

[Stephanie]

But it would make Jeremy not guilty.

You don't have to prove innocence the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

You make things up!

"The reasonable doubt standard is not used in every stage of a criminal prosecution. The prosecution and defense need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every piece of evidence offered into trial is authentic and relevant. If a prosecutor or defendant objects to a piece of evidence, the objecting party must come forward with evidence showing that the disputed evidence should be excluded from trial. Then the trial judge decides to admit or exclude it based on a preponderance of the evidence presented."

[lookout]

Certain paragraphs from Julie Mugford's statements were cherry-picked and then condensed to the advantage of the prosecution and jury but that which had been omitted was never shown to Jeremy's defence or anyone else and that's what came to light in June of this year. It then became clear that JM would have failed in becoming an honest and trustworthy prosecution witness.

[Jane]

Certain paragraphs from Julie Mugford's statements were cherry-picked and then condensed to the advantage of the prosecution and jury but that which had been omitted was never shown to Jeremy's defence or anyone else and that's what came to light in June of this year. It then became clear that JM would have failed in becoming an honest and trustworthy prosecution witness.

Conversely, it was precised(s) to remove irrelevancies. It is open to interpretation exactly WHO "it became clear" to.

[David1819]

Right, it's now come down to an acceptance of his guilt but a desire to set him free at all costs, has it?

If you actually used your brain you would realise that you cannot be 'innocent' in the eyes of the law. Your either guilty(beyond reasonable doubt) or not guilty. The latter resulting in the presumption of Innocence.

I believe the prosecution found proof of him being guilty back in 1986, didn't they? Or did the jury find him guilty for the fun of it?

The state found 'proof' of guilt in many cases in the 1980s now consider this countries appalling record of finding proof that later turned out to be nothing of the sort. specially in the 1980s. The prosecution forensics in 1986 does not stand up to modern scrutiny.

[David1819]

You make things up!

No I don't.

http://findlaw.co.uk/law/dispute_resolution/litigation/trial/500248.html

[Stephanie]

JB writes the following:

"With luck, requests made via my M.P. and M.E.P’s might help persuade Essex Police to fulfil their obligation to disclose. After thirty years of asking I do hope so especially as we have now reached the 29th anniversary of my conviction there is no reason for the evidence proving my innocence not to be disclosed.

He says 'there is no reason for the evidence proving my innocence not to be disclosed?' What evidence? If there is evidence and he knows about it then he would have submitted it for appeal.

He writes in a very manipulative way imo. It's not difficult to see why some people are taken in by what he says. But he isn't consistent. He's never been consistent. He doesn't have the anger a genuinely innocent person would possess. He'll have the excuses as to why he isn't angry I'm sure but that's one of the differences between a genuinely innocent person and a guilty one.

JB has used his opportunities to speak publicly about his 'claimed innocence' but instead of doing so has, for example, written about cake making? Really... 

[Stephanie]

No I don't.

http://findlaw.co.uk/law/dispute_resolution/litigation/trial/500248.html

In general, yes you do!

You are making claims with hindsight. You weren't on the jury nor were you at the trial.

[Stephanie]

If you actually used your brain you would realise that you cannot be 'innocent' in the eyes of the law. Your either guilty(beyond reasonable doubt) or not guilty. The latter resulting in the presumption of Innocence.

The state found 'proof' of guilt in many cases in the 1980s now consider this countries appalling record of finding proof that later turned out to be nothing of the sort. specially in the 1980s. The prosecution forensics in 1986 does not stand up to modern scrutiny.

Please list the cases you are referring.