Spot on and well worth reading.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/fe...ng-stool?INTCMP=SRCH

Generally he's right but, once again, he resorts to blatant and silly manipulation in order to strengthen an argument that he didn't need to strengthen. For example: he suggests the jury asking what is 'reasonable doubt' was a 'deep' question. No it wasn't - they were thick. It's not as if Wittgenstein was examining the phrase. What next - someone who didn't realise that they needed to go into work after the first day is hailed as the modern embodiment of David Hume's sceptical philosopher? Typical lazy and cynical Grauniad sophistry.

Don't agree; that was my problem in my trial; I would have thought that 4 out of 6 witnesses getting the dates several years out (always making them much younger in their statements than they would have been; in one case a 12 year old became 16) should have given jurors "reasonable doubt".

JK2006 wrote:
Don't agree; that was my problem in my trial; I would have thought that 4 out of 6 witnesses getting the dates several years out (always making them much younger in their statements than they would have been; in one case a 12 year old became 16) should have given jurors "reasonable doubt".

You don't disagree, you don't understand. If YOU think 'reasonable doubt' is meaningful and understandable, which your comments clearly suggest you do, then Jenkins' stupid claim that not understanding it is proof of a 'deep' philosophical sensibility is just silly. Don't indulge such lazy claptrap.

My point is that wanting to know what is meant by "reasonable doubt" is something the average juror should expect a judge to explain in layman's terms; it is such a vague concept... is it "reasonable" to doubt someone's evidence because you think they seem dishonest? Or should you have actual facts - proof they are lying? Or is there simply not enough solid evidence to convince you? A stupid phrase and NOT stupid to wonder what the fuck it means.

JK2006 wrote:
My point is that wanting to know what is meant by "reasonable doubt" is something the average juror should expect a judge to explain in layman's terms; it is such a vague concept... is it "reasonable" to doubt someone's evidence because you think they seem dishonest? Or should you have actual facts - proof they are lying? Or is there simply not enough solid evidence to convince you? A stupid phrase and NOT stupid to wonder what the fuck it means.

It ISN'T a vague concept - that is why you are completely understandably furious at the unjust treatment you received. Don't attack your own defence.