Evening, everyone, I've not been able to follow the forum because once again, when I try to log in from my.internet connection, I'm told I'm banned
mods or admins, help pls? Just discovered I can get in on my phone.
I haven't commented on the Simon Hall situation because, like everyone else, I don't know all of the facts. As far as taking things at face value is concerned, are the critics suggesting that Dr Michael Naughton, the entire innocence project, the various other experts who were involved, the MPs and campaign groups and documentary makers ALL took the claims of innocence at face value, or is that just reserved for me? Is it also being suggested that stirling University and the Scottish centre for Crime and Justice Research, as well as their external examiners also accept research at face value? Please, a little common sense!
If it turns out that Simon Halls confession is genuine, made in sound mind, without any coercion or pressure, then I will willingly hold up my hands and say I got it wrong. That doesn't, however, take away from the fact that the conviction was obtained on the flimsiest evidence (so said the DPP himself) and that should sound an alarmfor everyone that wrongfulconvictions of innocent people are inevitable if such weak circumstantial cases are not robustly challenged. I, for one, would rather keep on questioning until there are convincing answers to the unanswered questions in cases like this , of course there will be times when the person turns out to be guilty as charged, but in the words of Roy Ramm, I want to see solid building blocks of evidence - otherwise, we're depending on blind faith, and handing over out right to know that truePp justice is being obtained in return for "trust us, we know who the bad guys are" placations.
