The Minimum Legal Burden On Jeremy Bamber

Started by Erik Narramore, January 29, 2022, 10:40:18 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, 10:40:18 PM Last Edit: January 29, 2022, 10:47:41 PM by Administrator
Jeremy has never had to prove his innocence.  At trial, he only had to show there was reasonable doubt, which there was.  At an appeal, he only has to show the convictions are unsafe and/or unsatisfactory, which they are.
"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 31, 2022, 02:36:22 AM
.
"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 31, 2022, 02:51:37 AM
.
"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