Blackstone's Ratio

[Erik Narramore]

I have to say, I do find it much easier to put Sheila in the crime scene than Jeremy - and that is quite worrying.

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: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=293.0

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.

If a guilty Jeremy had been acquitted in 1986, Fate or karma (or whatever you call it) would have caught up with him sooner or later.  Probably he would have squandered away the estates or lost it all in litigation with the family.  He may well have been caught out by the law due to his involvement in drugs.  He would always have been looking over his shoulder.  Protections against double jeopardy were also weakened due to the Stephen Lawrence case, and if Essex Police had retained all the evidence and had it DNA-tested during the 1990s, an acquitted Jeremy might well have faced a re-trial.