We disagree on that they have been admitted a mere three times in the UK because they have not been robustly challenged and that at sime stage that could happen.. We disagree that there is evidence that they have not been robustly challenged. We disagree that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted..
OK lets look at these,
We disagree on that they have been admitted a mere three times in the UK because they have not been robustly challenged and that at sime stage that could happen..
4 times in UK. Your one piece of
"evidence" to support this assertion is questionable hearsay evidence from the family of a man spending life in prison, so lets leave Gilroy case to one side. Where is your evidence that in the cases of Ian Stewart, Edward Cairney , Avril Jones and Ross Willox the evidence wasn’t robustly challenged.
We disagree that there is evidence that they have not been robustly challenged I will repeat there is no evidence that they weren’t robustly challenged, even the hearsay evidence doesn’t say they weren’t robustly challenged. I don't know where you got this idea from.
We disagree that the SCCRC said they should not have been admitted..I have no idea if they said it or not, you seem to believe it because the parents of the convicted man said it was so, you have never seen hide nor hair of the SCCRC report.
Why do you place so much weight on the words of the family of a man serving a sentence for murder?