After 35 years of applying to see documents that were never shown to the defence at the time of his trial in 1985 his lawyers are going to the High Court to apply for access. 35 years !!. (the guy passed a lie detector test some years ago.)
Guilty as sin, so many things about his behaviour is not congruent with how an innocent person would behave. Plus there's the whole thing with the silencer. No way do I believe he didn't do it.
I believe with all the evidence brought forward he’s guilty . However if any evidence for his Defense has been left out their should be an enquiry as to why. No evidence should be left or regarded as irrelevant out of any trial imo the defendant should have every bit of evidence heard and then be judged otherwise it leaves for appeals Independent Judges should re examine any evidence either new or left out and decide whether the judgement should be challenged . So many judgements in the past have been questionable as Stephan Kiszko ,Derek Bentley etc ,
agree Marlon - the issue isn't whether he's guilty or not the issue is that the police have refused for 35 years to hand over relevant documents despite a court order having being made some years ago for them to do that.
Apparently there were two silencers and this wasn’t disclosed to the defence. Also, there are doubts about the blood-related evidence. Not saying he didn’t do it, but justice demands these things are considered.
The only thing that makes me think 'maybe' ....... is the fact the Taffs notebook and docs all went missing (he died just before the trial). A policemans notebook was still sacred back then and key to any investigation. Then there is the fact JB just hasn't let it lie, since day 1. Normally they give up protesting after 5 years or so and accept it. But apart from that .......... ^ What @JamDrop says.
I think if you are a psychopath you can easily pass a lie detector test so I'd rule that out, Seems that an intruder was ruled out too. Which leaves him or Sheila.
The main thing here is the non-disclosure of evidence as has been said by one or two. Also however none of us are in a position to speculate about his guilt I would suggest. He may very well be as evil as 2 x Himmlers but unless we have been privy to the whole court proceedings, reports, evidence, defence/prosecution comments etc then we are simply using press reporting or anecdotal stuff to make a comment. Not sufficient.
spot on! this non-disclosure by the prosecution is appalling - 35 years is a long time! - you wonder how common this 'tactic' of non-disclosure is - maybe quite common in 'everyday' low profile cases. Don't know who said it but it's said that 'it is harder for an innocent man to prove his innocence than it is for a guilty man to convince others he's innocent.'
It means its hard to convince someone of your innocence if you're innocent than to be found not guilty in court even if you are guilty (I think!)
