Jo Cox defendant gives his name as

Yes.

So this bloke has a chance of not being found guilty then?

 

There is no doubt about his guilt. And I agree the **** deserves to die a horrible death.

A jury returns a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict in most cases. Not all people found guilty turn out to be.
You have to have an appeals process to deal with this, especially in capital cases. This is what costs.
There was a programme on last week about a guy who was finally being executed, after 21 years on death row
& he killed his mother in cold blood.

 

There was one this year in America (possibly). A man was executed based on the evidence of a medical examiner who's opinion was at odds with several other pathologists (who all said he victim had a heart attack) and who was subsequently sacked for his role in the investigation.

There was one last year where another man was put to death only for it to be discovered afterwards that the FBI had hidden evidence e showing that the ammunition used in the murder wasn't as rare as they had claimed during the trial and that the police had hidden a tip off pointing at somebody else as the murderer. After his death somebody came forward and fingered her boyfriend (hehe) alleging that HE had committed the murder, funnily enough in circumstances exactly matching the tip off that the police had hidden

 

Fair.

I know we have cases of miscarriages of justice.

I was mearly suggesting when we have no doubt whatsoever then I would argue for it.

Wherever we have some kind of doubt then I don't think it should be used for the reasons pointed out

 

Just a thought, would it be possible to release him on bail under the proviso that he lives at his own home address and then make sure all police radio's were malfunctioning for say 48 hours after his release?

 

The criminal burden of proof is "beyond all reasonable doubt" so there should be no doubt about any conviction. I don't see how you'd separate out which ones are ok for execution.