In the case of Betty Yates, isolated cottage, apparent motive of burglary, elderly victim, beating the victim with a blunt instrument before inflicting knife wounds, victim lived alone. The difference with Mr Suddard is that he was not quite so elderly (59).
ATM Man was either directly related to the attack on Mrs E, or he was a random who found a handbag with a cashcard in it and decided to try his luck. Either way, attempting to use it in such a visible way seems strange - in direct view of a CCTV camera, in clothing that was bound to stand out. One could conclude that the user, for reasons known only to himself, wanted the footage linked to the attempt to use the card at that particular place and time. Or, alternatively, he was extremely stupid.
I'm not casting anything, net or otherwise. I told a story - others can make of it what they will.
Goodness, a number of assumptions here. Firstly, is it a "technicality" if an innocent person is convicted on the basis of contaminated evidence? Is overturning the conviction of an innocent person "getting him off"? Put that way, the inference is that he's guilty and "getting off with it," rather than he's innocent and should never have been convicted in the first place.
Secondly"firmly believing on a personal level" is dangerous ground - I prefer to stick with facts and evidence to support my decisions about whether a case is a miscarriage of justice or not. The facts, in this case, are that there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim that Matthew Hamlen hurt Mrs E in any way whatsoever, nor that he was anywhere near Fig Tree Cottage that day. The foundation of our justice system is that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Matthew has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - nowhere near it. When people are convicted of horrific crimes, it's important to all of us that the evidence solidly proves that they were responsible, otherwise we risk leaving dangerous attackers at liberty while innocent individuals serve time that is not theirs to serve.
The murders of Samantha and Jasmine Bissett make this point more clearly than I ever could.
Sandra I respect your painstaking research as I have said on a previous occasion but there's a lot wrong with this. Firstly they have apprehended the culprit for the Betty Yates and John Suddard crimes so I really don't know what the point you were making in relation to Matthew Hamlen was.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20171967Next we get onto Harry Edmonds and the estate manager. It's quite plain from your podcasts that you are casting aspersions on one or both of these characters from the actions and behaviour of the son of the victim at the scene of the crime. To deny this is disingenuous. The fact that someone tried to withdraw money from a cashpoint with her card would I have thought have ruled out Harry Edmonds altogether. Had he wished his mother dead I've no doubt he had the means to pay a hitman. Why would a random burglar attempt to use the victim's card anyway had he not been sure of the number, and why conceal his face with the coat if this were a legitimate withdrawal?
As for the alleged contaminated evidence, of course it's getting off on a technicality if the rolling pin DNA is disallowed. It was the whole basis on which the retrial proceeded. You shrug off far too lightly the line of questioning regarding sexual contact with the victim, which I reproduce here in case members have forgotten. He is covering himself in case Police can place him by some means at the scene of the crime.
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14264443.murder-accused-not-sure-if-he-had-sexual-involvement-with-battered-pensioner/As for your writing style I would be the last person to condemn anyone for a personal or emotional slant as members know many of my posts are liable to wander in that direction. But again I think you are deceiving yourself if you can't see that interviewing the mother of the victim and commenting on the prison procedure of informing Hamlen of his mother's death is not tugging at the heart strings, when many of us will believe that after the nature of the crime he was convicted of committing and which you have not proved he did not commit he warrants no sympathy whatsoever in this regard.