The Llanharry murders

[RodCrosby]

I'd like to hear some of the reasons you maintain his innocence-Jones I mean, not Wallace, who was as guilty as hell.

I don't need reasons for innocence (although several have already been mentioned). That's a given and a rightful presumption.

The Prosecution failed.

Please get over it...

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Digest (Roman law), Justinian (6th Century)

As for Wallace. You know better than three judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1931, one of whom, Hewart LCJ, effectively stood on his head to overturn the verdict? [Hewart had intimated throughout his legal career that he could not conceive of a jury delivering such a wrong verdict. Until he was faced squarely with it in May 1931...]

Even the Prosecutor, Hemmerde KC, was forced to concede, ultimately, in front of the Judges, that there was no evidence against Wallace.

"Guilty as Hell !"

Mmmm...

Can therefore only be from your own Prejudice and Fancy...

Thanks for clarifying that.

[Steve_uk]

I don't need reasons for innocence (although several have already been mentioned). That's a given and a rightful presumption.

The Prosecution failed.

Please get over it...

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Digest (Roman law), Justinian (6th Century)

As for Wallace. You know better than three judges of the Court of Appeal in 1931, one of whom, Hewart LCJ, effectively stood on his head to overturn the verdict? [Hewart had intimated throughout his legal career that he could not conceive of a jury delivering such a wrong verdict. Until he was faced squarely with it in 1931...]

Could we please have substance and not waffle on the Llanharry murders? If you wish to divert attention onto Wallace there is a thread already created, though I don't mind references as long as it's relevant to Jonathan Jones.

[RodCrosby]

Could we please have substance and not waffle on the Llanharry murders? If you wish to divert attention onto Wallace there is a thread already created, though I don't mind references as long as it's relevant to Jonathan Jones.

Not sure who the "we" are, or by what writ you purport to give orders.

The "waffle" is the basic tenets of English Law, and it was you Sir, who first drew parallels with the Wallace Case !

Jonathan Jones is no longer relevant. He was cleared 26 years ago...

[Steve_uk]

Not sure who the "we" are, or by what writ you purport to give orders.

The "waffle" is the basic tenets of English Law, and it was you Sir, who first drew parallels with the Wallace Case !

Jonathan Jones is no longer relevant. He was cleared 26 years ago...

The conviction was deemed unsafe. It's not the same as not guilty. If you consider he's innocent (and from what you write you seem to think he is and police are looking for a new suspect (Rob can have another laugh tonight) I'd like you to furnish evidence of his innocence, otherwise this thread will remain the duologue it is in danger of remaining.

[RodCrosby]

If you insist on parading your ignorance, so be it.

Criminal Appeal Act 1968

Part 1

Section 2 (3)

"An order of the Court of Appeal quashing a conviction shall, except when under section 7 below the appellant is ordered to be retried, operate as a direction to the court of trial to enter, instead of the record of conviction, a judgment and verdict of acquittal."

Jones was not retried under Section 7. He was Acquitted.

[Steve_uk]

If you insist on parading your ignorance, so be it.

Criminal Appeal Act 1968

Part 1

Section 2 (3)

"An order of the Court of Appeal quashing a conviction shall, except when under section 7 below the appellant is ordered to be retried, operate as a direction to the court of trial to enter, instead of the record of conviction, a judgment and verdict of acquittal."

Jones was not retried under Section 7. He was Acquitted.

It was quashed but the three appeal judges deemed the verdict unsafe. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/murder-conviction-quashed-1.43324

I'm not half as temperamental as some members past and present, though I do suggest that you moderate your tone in your own interests for further discourse.

[RodCrosby]

It was quashed but the three appeal judges deemed the verdict unsafe. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/murder-conviction-quashed-1.43324

I'm not half as temperamental as some members past and present, though I do suggest that you moderate your tone in your own interests for further discourse.

Nope. You still don't understand.

The "unsafe" bit is merely the statutory test under the legislation. It is a minimum test, and because it is passed, to the satisfaction of the Appeal Judges, does not mean it was somehow only barely passed.

On the contrary, the Wallace Case, "no evidence", for example, would also satisfy the "unsafe" test by a country mile. But it would still be deemed "unsafe", under the 1968 legislation.

Please don't threaten me, or do demonstrate by what writ you purport to do so.

The fact that I am trying to educate you, in a perfectly civil manner, is no grounds for complaint.

[RodCrosby]

acquit  [see 1968 Criminal Appeal Act Part 1, Section 2(3)]

to decide officially in a law court that someone is not guilty of a particular crime:

Cambridge Dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/acquit

[Steve_uk]

Nope. You still don't understand.

The "unsafe" bit is merely the statutory test under the legislation. It is a minimum test, and because it is passed, to the satisfaction of the Appeal Judges, does not mean it was somehow only barely passed.

On the contrary, the Wallace Case, "no evidence", for example, would also satisfy the "unsafe" test by a country mile. But it would still be deemed "unsafe", under the 1968 legislation.

Please don't threaten me, or do demonstrate by what writ you purport to do so.

The fact that I am trying to educate you, in a perfectly civil manner, is no grounds for complaint.

I have never threatened anybody on this site, unlike some members past and present I could mention.

Admittedly I haven't learned very much from your posts on this thread so far, but I live in hope that you will provide evidence to convince me of Jonathan Jones' innocence.

[RodCrosby]

I have never threatened anybody on this site, unlike some members past and present I could mention.

Admittedly I haven't learned very much from your posts on this thread so far, but I live in hope that you will provide evidence to convince me of Jonathan Jones' innocence.

It is not a requirement, and is a sterile pursuit.

He was acquitted, that is found "not guilty", and the Police have been pursuing other lines of enquiry for over 15 years...

[Steve_uk]

It is not a requirement, and is a sterile pursuit.

He was acquitted, that is found "not guilty", and the Police have been pursuing other lines of enquiry for over 15 years...

The Irish Times reported that the three appeal judges deemed the verdict unsafe. That is good enough for me.

Now if you can't furnish evidence which might persuade me of Jonathan Jones' innocence or make otherwise constructive comments then please clear off this thread. I will be posting more on this thread myself next week.

[RodCrosby]

The Irish Times reported that the three appeal judges deemed the verdict unsafe. That is good enough for me.

Now if you can't furnish evidence which might persuade me of Jonathan Jones' innocence then please clear off this thread. I will be posting more on this thread myself next week.

I don't have to "clear off" anywhere, please or otherwise.

I have demonstrated your misunderstandings of the Law and of the case.

I don't have to persuade you of anything. The relevant powers have long ago been persuaded...

The fact that Jonathan Jones has been a free man for 26 years, acquitted, having his conviction quashed, and declared not guilty under the Law is sufficient evidence that this entire tedious exchange was entirely unnecessary.

We got there in the end though.

Thank-you again for your co-operation.

[Steve_uk]

I repeat: the conviction was deemed unsafe by three appeal court judges: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Tooze+murder+breakthrough.-a097249762

I would like to discuss the case sensibly, not scoring points off each other like two ten-year-olds playing a game of table tennis. There are some inconsistencies and ambiguities as I admitted at the outset. Do you acknowledge these?

Why do you think Jones never applied for compensation for wrongful arrest and imprisonment, or have I missed something?

[Steve_uk]

In September 1992 a year before the murders Harry and Megan's farm was burgled whilst they were attending a funeral. The only thing taken was Harry's shotgun.

[Steve_uk]

On 23rd June 1993, a month before the murders, a man wearing a beige trenchcoat and dark glasses was seen in Tyle Garw Lane, near the Tooze's farmhouse. Jonathan Jones initially denied being there. Subsequently he admitted to being in the area for the purpose of helping Harry with the hay baling. The hay baling machine was broken. The Prosecution alleged that Jones was doing a "dry run" for the murders.