Reference to facts and evidence as well inferences that can be drawn from those facts will be coloured by my own dishonesty and bias? LOL
No, as usual with people here, you deliberately misconstrue my comment. As explicitly stated by myself above, the point is that you are
a priori assuming guilt or innocence and then interpreting the evidence accordingly. Thus, the premise is wrong. To you, this is akin to a social, political or religious cause, but you cannot know whether he is guilty or innocent, and even after reviewing all the available evidence, you would not know that, due to the special features of the case.
Even professional lawyers don't do this. A solicitor is an officer of the court and his first and primary duty is to justice, not to his client. A barrister is not an officer of the court, merely an advocate, but while he will argue his client's case, he only does so in that professional capacity. Neither assume guilt or innocence. Even police, judges and jurors don't, as a rule, know guilt or innocence. They are just working on the evidence.
Why constrain yourself to man made legal principles and points of law on an internet forum?
Because that's how these cases are decided and that's the ONLY basis on which this case can be understood. By starting out from an errored premise, you are stunting your own understanding of things. Every piece of evidence you touch is going to be tainted, because you are looking at things through a lens of guilt or innocence that fulfils your emotional needs. If you are honest, you will accept this is the case and acknowledge the validity of my point and maybe resolve to be a bit more honest in future, but you are being defensive instead. I've struck a nerve.
This conviction will only buckle under public pressure once the facts become apparent. The legal system will not correct this.
How do you know he is innocent in the first place? You're better than Steve and Adam, but not much. It's just a question of degrees of dishonesty. By all means, if you find indications that the conviction is unsafe and you can demonstrate this, then I would support you 100%, but only on that specific basis, not on the basis of innocence, since I can't know that he is innocent.
The reality is that there is no evidence exonerating Jeremy Bamber. It is possible that new evidence might come to light that does - for instance, a deathbed confession from Ann Eaton or a missing telephone record showing that Nevill did ring 999 after all - but in the absence of such evidence, we are left with what we have. I don't assert Bamber's guilt or innocence, I merely look at the evidence and facts in so far as we know.
Your approach is dishonest and shows no respect for truth. Part of upholding the truth involves recognising what we can't know.
That said....You are free to take up your own opinions and argue them here and help Bamber's campaign. That's your choice, but if that's the tenor of the discussions, then the discussions are inherently dishonest and likely to involve error and bias - which, by the way, is a large part of the reason miscarriages of justice happen in the first place.
