Author Topic: 2011 Appeal Judgement  (Read 764 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline Cambridgecutie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3185
Re: 2011 Appeal Judgement
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2022, 07:30:PM »
I've no idea where the case is at, but given its all circumstantial its very difficult to see how the defence could mount a successful appeal. 
Patrick O'Connor, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers: "It will have to be a slam dunk.  It will have to be something of a blockbuster piece of evidence to have a chance".

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2462
Re: 2011 Appeal Judgement
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2022, 07:44:PM »
I've no idea where the case is at, but given its all circumstantial its very difficult to see how the defence could mount a successful appeal.

One way would be to name the true culprit and provide evidence that the MO in this and his/her other crimes shows he/she was the murderer of JJ. That is they prove his/her crimes had a signature that can be read across the crimes.

Offline Cambridgecutie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3185
Re: 2011 Appeal Judgement
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2022, 08:02:PM »
One way would be to name the true culprit and provide evidence that the MO in this and his/her other crimes shows he/she was the murderer of JJ. That is they prove his/her crimes had a signature that can be read across the crimes.

Yes of course.  But there doesn't seem to be anyone in the frame. 

The point I was making in the previous post is that because the case is entirely cirumstantial its very difficult, if not impossible, to undermine any aspect of the case. 
Patrick O'Connor, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers: "It will have to be a slam dunk.  It will have to be something of a blockbuster piece of evidence to have a chance".

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2462
Re: 2011 Appeal Judgement
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2022, 10:35:PM »
Yes of course.  But there doesn't seem to be anyone in the frame. 

The point I was making in the previous post is that because the case is entirely circumstantial its very difficult, if not impossible, to undermine any aspect of the case.
I agree. JB has the same problem to a degree. Then who is the individual/suspect who cannot be named for legal reasons and why appoint a new legal team if there is nothing in the pipeline?