Reason v Dogma

[Erik Narramore]

I think there is a tendency among both the guilt and innocent camps to dogmatise the case.

Both are making statements of dogma in the language of evidence.  You are not mirror images of each other, though. 

I don't agree that there is a mountain of proof of Jeremy's innocence, but at the same time, the evidence for his guilt is dubious on closer scrutiny.

It's a 'reasonable doubt' case.  He may well be guilty, and my 'big picture' deductive instincts tell me he very probably is, but the evidence doesn't quite reach the bar of proof necessary for a conviction.  I wish it did.  It would save us all a lot of time and trouble.  As matters stand, strictly speaking he should not be where he is.