Out-of-Date Convictions: Summary Flaws of a 1980s Legacy Case

Started by Erik Narramore, January 29, 2022, 08:00:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Erik Narramore

The flaws in the prosecution case against Jeremy Bamber very much reflect the era:

-incomplete disclosure and arrogance/God complexes on the part of the police and prosecutors (we know best about what should be disclosed, not the court);

-sloppy forensics;

-editing statements;

-no recorded interview;

-lone wolf police officer who was dogmatic about Jeremy's guilt;

-dubious incriminating evidence suddenly appears, after a search by relatives who are financially-vested in a conviction;

-everything hinges on the uncorroborated evidence of a female witness, who is being paid by a tabloid on the contingency of a guilty verdict;

-without her, an entirely circumstantial case, as there was no direct forensic evidence of his involvement.

Law, forensics, disclosure practices and police culture have moved on.  Whether the convictions are safe/satisfactory, they are certainly out-of-date.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams