I've always failed to see or hear of evidence from a person who wasn't there in the first place. There never would have been. Which was all the more reason to declare an unsafe conviction from the start.
This was a mass murder without the usual unanimous verdict ?
I have some sympathy for the view that it is a possibly unsafe conviction but it's impossible to say without hearing all of the evidence and witnesses in court. TV shows often give us the impression that a jury makes a ruling on incontrovertible facts when in reality, they are routinely tasked with deciding on less concrete matters. Defendants have gone to the scaffold on less evidence than Jeremy Bamber was convicted on.
Indeed, as the CoA made clear, Mr Ismail's evidence of Sheila being moved post mortem could have been enough evidence
on its own for a jury to decide guilt upon. I don't agree but I am not an eminent judge and that is how things are.
I don't agree with majority verdicts either, particularly in serious cases. I don't think it is for 10 others to decide if 2 juror's doubts are reasonable, that is for the dissenting juror but again, it is how it is.
