Introduction

[Erik Narramore]

I have collected together the most important of my posts to the 'Blue Forum' as 'QCChevalier'.

General link to the Blue Forum: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php.  I advise against joining the Blue Forum, as it is now completely toxic and its moderator is impotent/ineffective/incompetent.  At the very least, the point on the map of the worldwide web occupied by that Forum should have a monitory sign: 'Beware!' 

Serious individuals with research intentions who need access to case documents are welcome to apply to join this forum.

There is a source thread on the Blue Forum, in which I first attempted to index my key posts, but unfortunately the exercise became impractical due to the space/character limitations imposed by that Forum's owners.  Nevertheless, I link the thread here:  https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10894.0.html

Key posts of mine from threads started by others have also been added ad hoc, and more will be added at a later date, when I have time.

I do explore the pro-guilt case in some posts, but overall my contribution to the Blue Forum was to make the case for 'Not Guilty due to reasonable doubt', as that is my working conclusion about the case.

For those who sneer at the Reasonable Doubt position or argue that it is amoral, I quote these words of my own (taken from a response to a user called 'Roch' in the Blue Forum thread 'Some Reasons I Think He Did It & Grounds For Reasonable Doubt', reproduced here):

This is why we have these fail-safes in the system, which are summarised in the closing speech of Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, Q.C., defence counsel in R v Adams: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10311.0.html

Those among the dogmatic guilt camp who sneer at the 'reasonable doubt' approach should reflect on which of the following two dilemmas they would prefer:

(i). a probable mass murderer walks free because the case against him cannot be proved to the necessary standard;
OR
(ii). having to live with the small but reasonable possibility, constantly nagging at the honest part of your conscience, that an innocent man has spent the last 35 years in prison.

I know my answer.  For me, it's Blackstone's ratio every time.  You don't lock people up without proof.  Due process is a necessary fire wall.

I stand by the words of Sir Frederick Lawrence, Q.C., from his closing speech to the jury in R v Adams.  These words should be commended to every jury in England:

"Justice is of paramount consideration here, and the only way in which this can be done is for you to judge the matter on what you have heard in this court and in this court only.

What you read in the papers, what you hear in the train, what you hear in the cafés and restaurants, what your friends and relations come and tell you; rumour, gossip, all the rest of it, may be so wrong.

The possibility of guilt is not enough, suspicion is not enough, probability is not enough, likelihood is not. A criminal matter is not a question of balancing probabilities and deciding in favour of a probability.

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 given him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of not guilty."

I finally offer you the words of John Mortimer's Rumpole: a speech in defence of the English attitude to law and what he calls the Golden Thread of criminal justice, the burden of proof:

Rumpole is, I think, the unconscious inspiration for the oratorical touch to my posts.

I love the clip below.  I could have written such a speech myself and wish I had.  It vindicates the law and the relevance of the Rumpolean spirit to this Forum, albeit he is a fictional character.  It is at least solace for those, like me, who hold to the standard of proof and the English way of doing justice, which is meant to be fair...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua9QU6RjGcg

[Erik Narramore]

.

[Erik Narramore]

.

[Erik Narramore]

.

[Erik Narramore]

.