Sandra's exit - The real reasons

[rulesapply]

Well time doesn't matter. Your posts keep assuming all that happened nearly 20 years ago including facts that aren't actual facts just your opinions. So this is a natural follow on question.

Anyone who thinks he is innocent have reasons based on facts so it just seems strange to me that those who believe him to be guilty can put forward weird and wonderful scenarios as they see fit. As long as it's pointed out imo etc etc.

The time spent on here telling us how guilty he is I would have thought there would have been quite a list 18 years on or not

If there is fact after fact to prove his innocence then why were none of Luke Mitchell's appeals based on his innocence?

[faithlilly]

Well time doesn't matter. Your posts keep assuming all that happened nearly 20 years ago including facts that aren't actual facts just your opinions. So this is a natural follow on question.

Anyone who thinks he is innocent have reasons based on facts so it just seems strange to me that those who believe him to be guilty can put forward weird and wonderful scenarios as they see fit. As long as it's pointed out imo etc etc.

The time spent on here telling us how guilty he is I would have thought there would have been quite a list 18 years on or not

What we should never tire of pointing out too is that the jury who sat through all the evidence failed to bring back  a majority verdict. In fact the split could have been as close as 8/7. How anyone can say that they are convinced of Luke’s when even a proportion of the jury weren’t puzzles me.

[Dexter]

What we should never tire of pointing out too is that the jury who sat through all the evidence failed to bring back  a majority verdict. In fact the split could have been as close as 8/7. How anyone can say that they are convinced of Luke’s when even a proportion of the jury weren’t puzzles me.

Can't argue with that...

[Dexter]

If there is fact after fact to prove his innocence then why were none of Luke Mitchell's appeals based on his innocence?

Do you have any idea how hard it is to overturn a conviction?

Even those those who have managed it most have multiple attempts. That is not confirmation of guilt it just highlights how hard it is.

When there is no evidence to convict or very little that doesnt leave much to be challenged.

[Dexter]

What facts? No one's allowed to see any. Very little is in the public domain, according to SL.

According to the law not just SL.

[Mrs S]

What we should never tire of pointing out too is that the jury who sat through all the evidence failed to bring back  a majority verdict. In fact the split could have been as close as 8/7. How anyone can say that they are convinced of Luke’s when even a proportion of the jury weren’t puzzles me.

The jury did indeed bring back a majority verdict! They failed to bring back a unanimous verdict. Which means it could have been as little as one juror failed to be convinced of his guilt. Should also never tire of pointing  out that jury also had the option of not proven verdict !

[rulesapply]

Do you have any idea how hard it is to overturn a conviction?

Even those those who have managed it most have multiple attempts. That is not confirmation of guilt it just highlights how hard it is.

When there is no evidence to convict or very little that doesnt leave much to be challenged.

When trying to over turn this conviction, why was Luke Mitchell's innocence never the  reason for any of his appeals?

[faithlilly]

The jury did indeed bring back a majority verdict! They failed to bring back a unanimous verdict. Which means it could have been as little as one juror failed to be convinced of his guilt. Should also never tire of pointing  out that jury also had the option of not proven verdict !

The did indeed. That’s why I think a unanimous verdict should be the only accepted verdict. Anything else is not beyond reasonable doubt.

[faithlilly]

When trying to over turn this conviction, why was Luke Mitchell's innocence never the  reason for any of his appeals?

Perhaps it may be useful for you to do a little reading into the appeal process.

[Dexter]

When trying to over turn this conviction, why was Luke Mitchell's innocence never the  reason for any of his appeals?

Have you not read the grounds of appeal or do you not understand them and the whole process?

[Mrs S]

Enough of the jurors were convinced of his guilt to convict, otherwise the not proven verdict was an option. 
If his verdict was innocent or not proven by a majority would you still be insisting that only unanimous verdict is acceptable?
This question was for faithlilly. Apologies I never quoted your comment that you think only unanimous verdicts should be accepted

[rulesapply]

Perhaps it may be useful for you to do a little reading into the appeal process.

Yeah, ok. Doesn't change the fact though that now, nothing less than innocence will do. LM won't accept a technicality! Could that be because all technicalities are exhausted? I think so because a technicality was certainly good enough in the past. Until it wasn't.

[Dexter]

Yeah, ok. Doesn't change the fact though that now, nothing less than innocence will do. LM won't accept a technicality! Could that be because all technicalities are exhausted? I think so because a technicality was certainly good enough in the past. Until it wasn't.

Sorry but that whole statement is just silly

[rulesapply]

Sorry but that whole statement is just silly

Ok but I think most people will be able to understand it.

[Dexter]

Ok but I think most people will be able to understand it.

It's not about understanding or not