Errr what? Is Boyce now disavowing his own scientific pig skin blowtorch experiment?
But the tests led Mr Boyce to conclude that the body was left lying against an Aga after the shooting and its handles caused the burns.
So, the police moved NB from the aga and decided to balance him on an upturned chair with his pants pulled down, just for kicks probably.. Or was it a satanic ritual ordered by their masters at the lodge? Or did Sheila help them do it before officer Firstday accidentally shot her twice in the throat while the theme from Benny Hill played?
Another innocence fraud phenomenon tactic
“
Modern standards of fairness, and a change in expert opinion..”
“On 22 July 1990, Baldev Hoondle was shot and killed during the course of a robbery at his off licence in East London. A witness recalled seeing two men, one of whom was wearing a distinctive “British Knights” baseball cap, fleeing the scene. Oliver Campbell, who had recently purchased such a cap, was arrested by the police and interviewed 14 times. Whilst in police custody, he made admissions inside and outside of police interview as to his involvement in Mr Hoondle’s murder.
The jury at Mr Campbell’s trial knew that he had learning disabilities with impaired memory and reasoning skills; however, an expert report concluded that he was not abnormally suggestible. During its review, the CCRC approached that same expert and invited him to re-consider his assessment of Mr Campbell. The expert concluded that he had not properly understood Mr Campbell’s vulnerabilities at the time of trial or appeal.https://ccrc.gov.uk/news/modern-standards-of-fairness-and-a-change-in-expert-opinion-form-basis-of-the-oliver-campbell-referral-to-the-court-of-appeal/Two experts agreed convicted killer Oliver Campbell wasn’t ‘abnormally suggestible’
Gisli Guðjónsson name comes up time & time again in many cases of the very real innocence fraud phenomenon (both in the UK and the US)
How would this ‘second expert’ know how Campbells
suggestibility was in the 90’s compared to now?
Excerpt from previous CCRC statement of reasons
👇
50. “The court noted that Ms Tunstall had agreed with the assessment of Dr Gudjonsson (now professor Gudjonsson) that Mr Campbell was not abnormally suggestible and too the view that her opinion was:
‘
tentative in the extreme and was no more than the defence counsel had suggested to the jury. This evidence would not have affected the jury’s verdict.
