Could The Convictions Stand With Or Without Julie Mugford, Or Only With Her?

Started by Erik Narramore, January 30, 2022, 02:14:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Erik Narramore

January 30, 2022, 02:14:24 AM
A question for the guilt camp:

Even if Julie retracted her evidence, Jeremy's conviction would still stand because of the silencer, is that right?
"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 30, 2022, 02:14:39 AM
Conversely, if the silencer were discredited but Julie's evidence remained in place, can I assume you would still consider the conviction safe?  After all, Julie's word can be utterly relied on, can it not?
"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 30, 2022, 02:14:58 AM
Let me put it a different way:

If the case against Jeremy depended on Julie's word alone, would you still stand by it?
"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 30, 2022, 02:16:13 AM
Or are you saying that the police didn't need Julie's evidence or the silencer?  They could have convicted Jeremy without these things?
"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