Could Ross have got a fair trial?

[nugnug]

its normal for the killer to be put on trial first and the acomplice secound but in this case it happend the other way around i personally belive that was highly prejuidical to the trial of mivheal ross

[ngb1066]

The sad thing about this case is that Eddie Ross the father of Michael Ross appears to have been a decent man who was devoted to his family.  He made the terrible mistake of covering up for his son when he clearly realised that he was responsible for the murder.  As a result he destroyed his own life but indirectly also that of his son.  Had Michael Ross been convicted as a 15 year old he would have been released when still a young man.  Instead he is serving a minimum of 25 years (and probably more) after getting married and having children.  Several people have had their lives devastated by this.  I followed this case from the outset and was always convinced that the official narrative was correct.  It was a really sad case.

[nugnug]

what im saying is as soon as they convicted effir of perverting the course of justice they had declared micheal guilty before he faced a jury micheal should of been the first one to face trial then secound or they should of both been tryed together,

how could a jury firly acess hes guilt or innocence when they knew his father had been jail for covering up the crime

[ngb1066]

what im saying is as soon as they convicted effir of perverting the course of justice they had declared micheal guilty before he faced a jury micheal should of been the first one to face trial then secound or they should of both been tryed together,

how could a jury firly acess hes guilt or innocence when they knew his father had been jail for covering up the crime

Are you sure the jury were told about the father's conviction?  I do not know for sure, but I cannot see that this would be admissible prosecution evidence.

The difficulty was that the CPS had originally taken the view that they had insufficient evidence to prosecute Michael Ross (contrary to the police view) but they certainly had sufficient evidence against his father.

[nugnug]

Are you sure the jury were told about the father's conviction?  I do not know for sure, but I cannot see that this would be admissible prosecution evidence.

The difficulty was that the CPS had originally taken the view that they had insufficient evidence to prosecute Michael Ross (contrary to the police view) but they certainly had sufficient evidence against his father.

the jury wouldent of needed to be told about his fatheres conviction it was in all the papers the bcc coerd it as well