Human Nature, the Criminal Justice System and Truth

Started by Erik Narramore, January 29, 2022, 08:45:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Erik Narramore

January 29, 2022, 08:45:59 PM
Putting aside the truth or otherwise of all this, I'm not clear why the guilt camp think it is a wild supposition or 'conspiracy theory' to think Julie Mugford lied due to pressure from the police and/or for other motives. 

People tell lies in court, including women and policemen. People are sometimes framed for crimes they did not commit?  I will grant you that normally this is because the person framed is believed to be guilty or is looked upon as suspicious, but the point is that the guilt camp seem to be dismissing as wild supposition things that actually have occurred in real life in other cases.
"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

Erik Narramore

#1
January 29, 2022, 08:46:59 PM
The guilt camp rubbish claims that the relatives may have conspired against Jeremy.

Again, I'm unclear why the guilt camp put these allegations in the 'conspiracy theory' category, as if they can be dismissed out-of-hand as beneath their notice.  People do plot together to tell lies, and - brace yourself for this because it will shock you - they sometimes do it because they're greedy or nasty.   
"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

Erik Narramore

#2
January 29, 2022, 08:48:47 PM
To my knowledge, it is not claimed by anybody supporting Jeremy that everybody has lied.  Anyway, why shouldn't it be the case that large numbers of people told lies in different ways?  Why can't experienced professionals make mistakes?  How did the Post Office Horizon scandal happen?  By accident?
"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

Erik Narramore

#3
January 29, 2022, 08:54:05 PM
For Jeremy to be innocent and/or his convictions unsafe, it need not necessarily be the case that everybody, or anybody, lied.  Telling an untruth is not the same as telling a lie.  Even Julie could have been telling the truth, as she saw it, but was mistaken.  Also, there are lies and then there are lies.  Everybody tells lies at some point, it doesn't follow that these lies are of any relevance or significance, even in a major incident such as this.
"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
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions