harryrag replied
Empowering the Innocent
@EmpowerInnocent
We investigated his claim of innocence to determine its truthfulness & helped get his case referred back to the CoA. We were told that he confessed & then committed suicide but have never seen any evidence that he murdered Joan Albert. How did he do it? The fibres didn’t match?
Quote Tweet
harryrag
@harryrag
3h
Replying to @EmpowerInnocent and @ccrcupdate
Michael Naughton supported convicted killer Simon Hall - who admitted he was guilty.
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/comments/how_greg_hampikian_abuses_two_positions_of_trust_in_serially_misrepres…
1:34 PM · Oct 21, 2019·Twitter Web App
harryrag
@harryrag
4m
Replying to
@EmpowerInnocent
The defence claimed the fibres didn't match? Well, they would, wouldn't they? The Court of Appeal looked at the forensic evidence and upheld the murder conviction.
http://bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/4.html…
harryrag
@harryrag
2m
Replying to
@EmpowerInnocent
What evidence were you expecting? CCTV footage of Simon Hall murdering Joan Albert?
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1186259466725056512
“Empowering alleged innocent victims of wrongful convictions with research, education & support
Project Director, Dr Michael Naughton, University of Bristol.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/with_replies
The problem facing many within the miscarriage of justice community/wrongful conviction arena is they don’t “naturally” “revise” their “(prior) belief about H“ as their denial wont allow them to face reality.
https://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/papers/probability_puzzles/bayes_evidence.html
Who’s behind this I wonder?
Private Eye Magazine
@PrivateEyeNews
A motive that's been proven not to exist; a total lack of DNA evidence; a "lost" clump of hair from the crime scene and a weapon which is mysteriously absent from video footage: the new edition of Private Eye explores an extraordinary possible miscarriage of justice. In shops now
1:58 PM · Jan 22, 2020·Twitter Web Apphttps://mobile.twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1219982614012014592Seems PrivateEye learned little following the exposure of Simon Halls guilt
Hanksoff03
@hanksoff03
Following their coverage of PO/Horizon case
@PrivateEyeNews
Private Eye magazine has covered our http://RobinGarbuttOfficial.com shocking miscarriage of justice and headlined it "Appeal on the Horizon" - Please get out and buy it - This is great news for all xx
11:16 AM · Jan 22, 2020·Twitter Web AppEmpowering the Innocent (ETI)
@EmpowerInnocent
The piece in Private Eye today really does lend support for Robin Garbutt’s 3rd application to the
@ccrcupdate to refer his conviction for the murder of his wife, Diana, back to the Court of Appeal. Eyes on now firmly on the @ccrcupdate to see how it responds.https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1219989949623275525‘Robin Garbutt, 46, was jailed for life in April 2011 and ordered to serve a minimum of 20 years in prison.
His trial heard he beat his 40-year-old wife Diana to death in their home above the village store in Melsonby, North Yorkshire, in March 2010.
Three Court of Appeal judges in London said his conviction was safe.
A jury at Teesside Crown Court heard he battered his wife to death in their bedroom before opening their post office and shop.
During the trial, Garbutt claimed an intruder with a gun told him "don't do anything stupid, we've got your wife" before robbing him as he worked, and that moments later he discovered his wife's body in bed in their living quarters.
The fresh material relied on in the appeal related to Post Office records going back to 2004.
Garbutt's trial had been told that part of the reason he killed his wife was that he feared his theft of thousands of pounds from the post office they ran was about to be discovered.
It was submitted on Garbutt's behalf that the pattern shown by the records "cannot be relied upon as demonstrating thefts of Post Office cash".
Announcing the court's decision to reject the challenge, Lord Justice Hughes accepted that if the jury had had the full records, "it would have supported the defendant in something that he said, namely that he had always held large sums in the safe, and the jury would have been likely to take a different view of his credibility generally".
But he added: "The premise on which this appeal has so well been argued is that the jury may have proceeded from theft to murder.
"We have asked ourselves anxiously whether that might be so. We are clear that it cannot be."
He said the court was "quite satisfied that the possibility of there having been the robbery which the defendant described must have been rejected quite independently of the financial evidence".
Lord Justice Hughes concluded: "We are quite satisfied that this conviction is not unsafe and that the late disclosure of the additional Post Office records does not render it so.
"The appeal must accordingly be dismissed."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18195427