THE ALIBI.

[faithlilly]

Very true since the evidence that convicted him was circumstantial. Scottish courts regularly convict people to a lesser standard. The terms 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and 'simple majority verdicts' are incompatible with justice. I would certainly support any incentive that has as its aim the abolishment of simple majority verdicts in Scotland.

Absolutely agree.

[Brietta]

Very true since the evidence that convicted him was circumstantial. Scottish courts regularly convict people to a lesser standard. The terms 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and 'simple majority verdicts' are incompatible with justice. I would certainly support any incentive that has as its aim the abolishment of simple majority verdicts in Scotland.

I'm not sure about that John.

My experience is that there is nearly always one.

[Venturi Swirl]

Very true since the evidence that convicted him was circumstantial. Scottish courts regularly convict people to a lesser standard. The terms 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and 'simple majority verdicts' are incompatible with justice. I would certainly support any incentive that has as its aim the abolishment of simple majority verdicts in Scotland.

Hang on, you think the term “beyond a reasonable doubt” is incompatible with justice?  Why may I ask?

[William Wallace]

So three people were in Jodi’s house on the night of the murder yet only one gave evidence in court. The police went to the bother of checking CCTV in relation to AO’s movements yet didn’t ask him to testify. Isn't that odd?

It's more than "odd",

[William Wallace]

Let me put it bluntly to you that you are making up your own factoids based on your observation of two "nice straight Police" flashing libel on screen in the discredited Channel5 documentary.

I asked you for the source of your assertion that "We recently find out that a statement made by him was "discovered" later, maybe years later and was clearly put in a locked drawer in 2003."

In return you gave me your opinion and supposition instead of a reliable source ~ and that simply isn't good enough for the expectations of this forum, the members and visitors who perhaps anticipate finding accurate and reliable information here. 

I find this myth you are promulgating as fact about a witness statement being secreted in a locked drawer outrageous, particularly when it is dovetailed with the distrust you are projecting on named individuals in your posts.

You really don't have much idea of what was going on in 2003 do you? There's a very good reason AO's statement disappeared but you'll never work it out.

[William Wallace]

Is it too late to nominate the above for comedy post of the month?

Ee but you have brightened up my day Brietta.

Lol yes.

[John]

Hang on, you think the term “beyond a reasonable doubt” is incompatible with justice?  Why may I ask?

Because in reality, juries are not deciding cases on the basis of being beyond reasonable doubt. The entire concept is now in the gutter in our discredited justice system.

[Brietta]

You really don't have much idea of what was going on in 2003 do you? There's a very good reason AO's statement disappeared but you'll never work it out.

You certainly don't have much of an idea about providing sources to support your assertions.

For the second time of asking ~ cite please for "We recently find out that a statement made by him was "discovered" later, maybe years later and was clearly put in a locked drawer in 2003."

[Venturi Swirl]

Because in reality, juries are not deciding cases on the basis of being beyond reasonable doubt. The entire concept is now in the gutter in our discredited justice system.

so what system should they be using then?  Which country does not have a”discredited justice system “. that we should be striving to emulate?

[John]

so what system should they be using then?  Which country does not have a”discredited justice system “. that we should be striving to emulate?

The problem lies in that Judges are no longer empowered by the community they serve. Instead, they are now book learned lawyers who are put in place according to political leanings.

[Venturi Swirl]

The problem lies in that Judges are no longer empowered by the community they serve. Instead, they are now book learned lawyers who are put in place according to political leanings.

And how did politics influence the outcome of the Mitchell case?

[faithlilly]

The problem lies in that Judges are no longer empowered by the community they serve. Instead, they are now book learned lawyers who are put in place according to political leanings.

I’m not sure that that was ever true.

[John]

Please enlighten us all as to why one of the last people, possibly THE last,  to see Jodi alive was not cited to Court.

Clearly the police and the CO&PFS felt that his testimony would add little to the case.

[John]

From the appeal decision of 16 May 2008.

11] The appellant telephoned the deceased's house at 1732, but received no reply. At 1740 he called again, and spoke to Alan Ovens, asking if the deceased was in. He was informed that she had left to meet him. He replied, "OK, cool". Ovens informed Judith Jones about this call.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

[faithlilly]

Clearly the police and the CO&PFS felt that his testimony would add little to the case.

There was a question mark over when Jodi left the house. It appears in various statements the family cited anywhere from 4.50 to 5.30. A neighbour said she saw her leave after 5pm, another witness saw someone who she thought was Jodi being followed by a ‘stocky man’ around 5.05, a man that the police appealed for so they must have found the witness credible.

Of course if any of the sightings but the 4.50 is true then Andrina Bryson could not have seen Luke and Jodi at the entrance to the path at 4.54. The testimony of Allan Ovens therefore could have proved pivotal which makes it all the odder that he wasn’t called to give evidence.