outlandish Theory's

[Caroline]

As has been proven since the advent of DNA testing more than a few were or are innocent.

And far more guilty!

[lebaleb]

And far more guilty!

I agree, but the system is bound to fail in a small amount of cases.

[lookout]

I agree, but the system is bound to fail in a small amount of cases.

You've only to google the amount of MOJ's that the CCRC have processed !

[Caroline]

You've only to google the amount of MOJ's that the CCRC have processed !

Not ALL of the cases that the CCRC processes are MOJ!

[Caroline]

I agree, but the system is bound to fail in a small amount of cases.

I would agree with that but would emphasise 'small'.

[lookout]

Not ALL of the cases that the CCRC processes are MOJ!

I didn't say ALL.

[Jane]

I agree, but the system is bound to fail in a small amount of cases.

Of course. Nothing is perfect.

[wiggy]

caroline you seem to be putting up the argument that most of the people found guilty are guilty why do think that is good enough. If even 1 person is put to prison and is innocent then the system has failed.

And i think without naming names there has certainly been more than 1 mojs over the years.

Yes a lot of people who go to jail are guilty but shouldn't they all be

[Caroline]

caroline you seem to be putting up the argument that most of the people found guilty are guilty why do think that is good enough. If even 1 person is put to prison and is innocent then the system has failed.

And i think without naming names there has certainly been more than 1 mojs over the years.

Yes a lot of people who go to jail are guilty but shouldn't they all be

Most of the people found guilty ARE guilty and no system is perfect because humans make the decisions at the end of the day. If you want a perfect system you're being unrealistic.

[wiggy]

no but we want a system that convicts on evidence ot circumstancial evidence alone.

a fair system where all documents are given to the defense .

Where all witnesses are prosecuted if they have misled and given previous false testimony or have have withheld info.

Where physical evidence is  not removed from the crime scene and allowed in evidence.

where the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

no system is perfect that is why if there is reasonable doubt there can be no conviction. And in this case there are so many reasonable doubts.

[Jane]

no but we want a system that convicts on evidence ot circumstancial evidence alone.

a fair system where all documents are given to the defense .

Where all witnesses are prosecuted if they have misled and given previous false testimony or have have withheld info.

Where physical evidence is  not removed from the crime scene and allowed in evidence.

where the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

no system is perfect that is why if there is reasonable doubt there can be no conviction. And in this case there are so many reasonable doubts.

From sitting behind your screen, possibly so. NOT however from the bench where the jury sat.

[wiggy]

and jurys never get it wrong especially when not given all the evidence. i cannot believe people when they think that there is no room for doubt with the evidence presented . I just dont understand. And again i am not saying he is innocent just that there is doubt thats all.

[guest154]

and jurys never get it wrong especially when not given all the evidence. i cannot believe people when they think that there is no room for doubt with the evidence presented . I just dont understand. And again i am not saying he is innocent just that there is doubt thats all.

People obviously have a different opinion than you, not that hard to understand.  I believe the case to be beyond reasonable doubt - as proven at the time and in the failure of every appeal since. 

[Jane]

and jurys never get it wrong especially when not given all the evidence. i cannot believe people when they think that there is no room for doubt with the evidence presented . I just dont understand. And again i am not saying he is innocent just that there is doubt thats all.

Wiggy, as I've said before, if ever I find myself doubting -because let's be honest, it would be far more comforting to know that Sheila did it out of illness, than Jeremy did it out of greed- my mind goes to the ALLEGED phone call and Jeremy's reaction to it, and all doubt disappears.

[Caroline]

and jurys never get it wrong especially when not given all the evidence. i cannot believe people when they think that there is no room for doubt with the evidence presented . I just dont understand. And again i am not saying he is innocent just that there is doubt thats all.

You have doubt, many of us don't. Two jury members had doubt - the rest didn't. I can honestly say I have no doubt whatsoever that he is guilty. Although I do agree that some of the evidence (silencer) is a bit ropey.