I have been wading through the threads on here (as my time permits). I think you regulars will probably accept that, unless you have been here a while and participating, this is no easy task! Even though each thread starts with a title, they understandably get sidetracked and cover all sorts of things (including willys and what not!) and it's easy to get lost - and go crosseyed in the process. I am not trying to be lazy here but could I just state how I look at things. I will firstly admit that my knowledge of the case is not quite as extensive as some on here. However, the fact is, we don't have court time to examine every trial to this level of detail, even if it was all there from the outset. Some things I find (being honest here, not disrespectful) fantasy, some things minutiae and some things worth finding out more about.
By way of ab observation, I think people get bogged down by the innocent/guilty debate, which starts a lot of the arguments you see here and on other internet exchanges elsewhere. I look at it like this:
JB has been found guilty by a court - fact. It is quite pointless for anyone now to try to prove otherwise, either his supporters to prove his innocence or the non supporters to prove his guilt. What has to be established is whether anything has subsequently come to light since the original decision that, had it been available to the court, the jury might have come to a different conclusion. I cannot buy an assertion that anyone and everyone that was involved in this case, was party to some great stitch up. That's not to say that there weren't mistakes made and I accept that, but any appeal that proposed this with a great barrage of examples of mistakes, procedural failures and inconsistencies would likely fail - as well as pissing the judges off.
If I can be so bold as to ask the supporters to list their top ten (or more but keep to a sensible number), of things that they think, had the original jury been aware of, they might have come to a different decision. Obviously in many successful appeals, things are more straightforward - discredited expert testimony, unreliable confession evidence (fabricated, obtained by oppression etc), new technology such as DNA etc. but this case is accepted as much more complex. I can of course guess what the list includes but would like to ask views nevertheless. Just because mistakes are made, they don't automatically negate either the strength or actual validity of the evidence originally presented.
I have to finally add that I am undecided about the issue of PII. Obviously we only see one side of the story here and I am no specialist in this area, so I want to read more on this aspect. However, PII claims are always assessed by a court, so the police cannot just decide what they do or don't disclose.
Hmmm, a bit of rambling there whilst waiting for some downloads. Don't crucify me on my first post!
