Compensated for what? He was found guilty at trial. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the verdict, and the PC is not saying there was. The PC also said that the Appeal Court reached their decision on well settled legal principles, but what they did was take on too much of the role of the jury in assessing the value of the ‘new’ evidence, even though they are allowed to, to some extent.

The miscarriage they are referring to relates to the appeal process not the original trial. If the appeals had been granted he would likely still have been in prison awaiting trial, just like most murder accused are. If you go to trial for any crime and found not guilty there is no compensation for time held in remand.

Remember also that much of the appeal argument was either over items that were agreed in the original trial, were never used in the trial perhaps due to strategy or the original defence team believing they were of no value even though they were known, or were found/re-analysed subsequent to the trial. There is no implication by the PC that the original trial judge got anything wrong or that the trial was flawed.

Insider – like your style with the cluedo scenario.

The original trial would have had the same issues and it wasn’t considered an issue.

The research done on juries show they take their role very seriously and follow judges intstructions on evidence and publicity issues.

It is probably as rare as someone killing themselves with a shot to the rear side of the head after balancing the gun precariously on a chair and not leaving any prints on a bloodstained gun despite needing two hands on it to do the deed.

Here’s an example Ronald DeFeo Junior did it 1974

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_DeFeo%2C_Jr.

There has to be a retrial. It is no more the job of the Crown to nake the decision than the Court of Appeal.

I agree but there’s one little problem; the whole family weren’t killed. If Robin is the killer and a deranged one at that – or so are are told – why did David deserve “to stay”?

I agree but there’s one little problem; the whole family weren’t killed. If Robin is the killer and a deranged one at that – or so are are told – why did David deserve “to stay”?

I agree. What’s interesting is that some see this as a motive for Robin being the killer but not David. Why not David? I don’t think he would have been delighted for his friends and the rest of his family to learn that his father was shagging his sister, whether it was just a rumour or true. Indeed, David may have known more about this rumour/truth than his father, giving David (and not Robin) a reason to kill the family.

I can’t remember EVER hearing of a child killing the whole family (except in ancient Royal power struggles maybe) whereas fathers killing the whole family are sadly way too common.

Well, that’s true up to a point. But it may be that even if the new evidence had been presented at his trial, he may still have been found guilty. That, of course, is the Court of Appeal’s position. However, the Privy Council has said that it’s not up to the COA to decide on guilt and innocence in this case; that’s the job of 12 of David’s peers.

The problem for David is that he essentially has to prove that Robin is the killer, since it’s never been suggested that someone else did it. So if Robin is the killer, there should be available evidence that he’s the killer, right? Where is it?

Well, that’s true up to a point. But it may be that even if the new evidence had been presented at his trial, he may still have been found guilty. That, of course, is the Court of Appeal’s position. However, the Privy Council has said that it’s not up to the COA to decide on guilt and innocence in this case; that’s the job of 12 of David’s peers.

The problem for David is that he essentially has to prove that Robin is the killer, since it’s never been suggested that someone else did it. So if Robin is the killer, there should be available evidence that he’s the killer, right? Where is it?

People say a lot of things but when tested often become a bit vague. The whole incest meme in the Bain case is an example. When put on the spot, the claimant Cottle was found to be unreliable and Laniet in retro was a fantasist.

Ian’s method seems to revolve around getting one person to make a claim and then draw inferences to build a story, without always strongly testing their credibility, or at least being vague about sources. The DBP bondage claims are one recent example. Rather like a scatter gun, one of his pellets may hit a target in a minor way but in the current case I’m not sure if his reliance on pros and convicts is adding much credibility.

As an aside, interestingly Idour worked (as a PI) on the Bain case as he served a warrant on Cottle who made the incest claims.