Legal Reasoning Lesson 001: Relevancy

[Adam]

Not sure how a conviction of 33 years based on evidence, must be 'balanced against the fact that Bamber maintains his innocence'.

The CCRC & COA will just go by evidence.

[Adam]

Bamber protesting his innocence resulted in a trial. Where he was found guilty.

It then resulted in 33 years of appeals and accusations. The courts have upheld the conviction saying in 2002 'the more we look at the case, the more we believe the jury were right'.

[Luminous Wanderer]

It's completely irrelevant judged by the yardstick of your own criteria.

Of course it's irrelevant.  But again, as you are wont to do, you decontextualise my post.  I'm responding to Adam's inanity with an inanity of my own.

[Luminous Wanderer]

Not sure how a conviction of 33 years based on evidence, must be 'balanced against the fact that Bamber maintains his innocence'.

The CCRC & COA will just go by evidence.

I am responding to your inanity with my own inanity.  If the vintage of a criminal conviction is any demonstration of its safety, then the obverse must be the case: we must also take into consideration Jeremy Bamber's long-standing protestations of innocence!

So one inanity cancels out the other.  I find, given the embarrassing standard of posts that tend to emanate from pro-Bambers, this is the only way to deal with you.

What else shall we discuss?  Bamber's favourite colour?

[Roch]

Bamber protesting his innocence resulted in a trial. Where he was found guilty.

It then resulted in 33 years of appeals and accusations. The courts have upheld the conviction saying in 2002 'the more we look at the case, the more we believe the jury were right'.

This scenario is also consistent with:

A) Bamber being convicted on exaggerated, manipulated or fabricated evidence.

B) The witholding and dripfed release of evidence over a 33 year period.

C) An appeals system with screening, that is not designed to ascertain the truth of what took place but is loaded in favour of maintaining convictions.

[Luminous Wanderer]

Now we mustn't let emotion impede rational judgement. It's not relevant because Jeremy could be lying, so it doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Of course he could be lying.  I think we have to consider that, even as a Category A prisoner with all the protections that implies, he will be at heightened risk should he ever confess, as that would make him - among other things - a child killer.  Thus, as I have observed elsewhere, his protestations of innocence may be part of a self-preservation strategem.  I state the obvious, of course, but it's another point worth re-stating now and again for the benefit of the more religiously-minded pro-Bambers.