Its all impossible to be honest but with soap you just have to accept these things and not really moan.
Belive there will be an inconsistency in evidence and she will be released on a retrial. That is by means impossible. It happens more than you realise. It's what happens when a trial collapses. If the evidence was compromised enough it leads to a firm case of reasonable doubt and therefor an aquittal is the only route for the judge. He cannot preside over a guilty verdict if he is satisfied reasonable doubt has been established.
My concern with her return is not her release, but I feel very strongly that Ken and Deirdre cannot support her. She confessed to Deirdre and has not served her sentence. Deirdre knows she did it and so cannot support Tracys release.
It will be interesting to see how they play that out...
I read that they find DNA evidence that proves she didn't kill him
We know she killed him! That's the problem, so she will have to find a problem with the evidence... samples mixed up or contaminated, anything that casts doubt. Cast enough doubt and a judge cannot allow a conviction.
It's Ken and Deirdre Im concerned about. She confessed to Deirdre...
We know she killed him! That's the problem, so she will have to find a problem with the evidence... samples mixed up or contaminated, anything that casts doubt. Cast enough doubt and a judge cannot allow a conviction.
It's Ken and Deirdre Im concerned about. She confessed to Deirdre...
Deirdre will. But Deirdre is also a good and honest and moral person. Tracey confessed her crime. Pre-meditated murder... Deirdre cannot support her after that!
I read that they find DNA evidence that proves she didn't kill him
WTF? This makes no sense. She was in the house and her DNA was all over the scene let alone his body and murder weapon. Also I thought her plea was self defence?? how on earth can it be proven she didn't kill him when she admitted she hit him???
WTF? This makes no sense. She was in the house and her DNA was all over the scene let alone his body and murder weapon. Also I thought her plea was self defence?? how on earth can it be proven she didn't kill him when she admitted she hit him???
Soaps tend to like to change history to suit themselves
WTF? This makes no sense. She was in the house and her DNA was all over the scene let alone his body and murder weapon. Also I thought her plea was self defence?? how on earth can it be proven she didn't kill him when she admitted she hit him???
I don't know what the point of evidence will be. Someone mentioned DNA. Im just saying that if a defence can raise enough questions about dicrepancies, even small ones and create a reasonable doubt they have to aquit.
Remember she was living in that house and never denied being there so there may not have been DNA... hers would be there anyway
I don't know what the point of evidence will be. Someone mentioned DNA. Im just saying that if a defence can raise enough questions about dicrepancies, even small ones and create a reasonable doubt they have to aquit.
Remember she was living in that house and never denied being there so there may not have been DNA... hers would be there anyway
But Tracy claimed she hit him because he was trying to stab her. She conned Clare into believing she was being abused by him and never once did she deny hitting him around the head.
How DNA can now prove she didn't do it despite the fact she told everyone it was self defence?
If Corrie is rewriting history here by making out she didn't even hit him then its a jump the shark moment I'm afraid.
But Tracy claimed she hit him because he was trying to stab her. She conned Clare into believing she was being abused by him and never once did she deny hitting him around the head.
How DNA can now prove she didn't do it despite the fact she told everyone it was self defence?
If Corrie is rewriting history here by making out she didn't even hit him then its a jump the shark moment I'm afraid.
Absolutely agree. The DNA was brought up early in this thread and I pointed out that DNA has certain limitations.
Corrie cannot change the backstory. Ultimately they are freeing a murderer. That's not impossible by means, but they can't soften it. She did it and it was premeditated!
Absolutely agree. The DNA was brought up early in this thread and I pointed out that DNA has certain limitations.
Corrie cannot change the backstory. Ultimately they are freeing a murderer. That's not impossible by means, but they can't soften it. She did it and it was premeditated!
I don't think for a second she will be "proved innocent"
I think she will get off on a technicality. For example if paper work was not correctly processed it would not be admissible evidence. Recently there was a case where evidence was discounted because the date on the search warrant was wrong. Equally if she can find a way of introducing doubt about her conviction she is out. At a trial if reasonable doubt is established a judge must discharge the jury and go to retrail or set the person free and quash the original conviction. Innocence and guilt are not the be all and end all... unfortunately, because Tracy is guilty.
If I am honest I am more concerned that she is coming back in the first place...being such a pantomime villain..I will find it hard to watch if that side of her carries on...if we however get to see other sides to her then fair enough
Comments
Belive there will be an inconsistency in evidence and she will be released on a retrial. That is by means impossible. It happens more than you realise. It's what happens when a trial collapses. If the evidence was compromised enough it leads to a firm case of reasonable doubt and therefor an aquittal is the only route for the judge. He cannot preside over a guilty verdict if he is satisfied reasonable doubt has been established.
My concern with her return is not her release, but I feel very strongly that Ken and Deirdre cannot support her. She confessed to Deirdre and has not served her sentence. Deirdre knows she did it and so cannot support Tracys release.
It will be interesting to see how they play that out...
:D
Mind you, that would be more plausible than the nonsense we will endure next month
What's the nonsense? As awful as it is there is a precident in law for getting off on a technicality. Just depends on how they portray that
We know she killed him! That's the problem, so she will have to find a problem with the evidence... samples mixed up or contaminated, anything that casts doubt. Cast enough doubt and a judge cannot allow a conviction.
It's Ken and Deirdre Im concerned about. She confessed to Deirdre...
Deirdre will keep her gob shut
Deirdre will. But Deirdre is also a good and honest and moral person. Tracey confessed her crime. Pre-meditated murder... Deirdre cannot support her after that!
WTF? This makes no sense. She was in the house and her DNA was all over the scene let alone his body and murder weapon. Also I thought her plea was self defence?? how on earth can it be proven she didn't kill him when she admitted she hit him???
Soaps tend to like to change history to suit themselves
I don't know what the point of evidence will be. Someone mentioned DNA. Im just saying that if a defence can raise enough questions about dicrepancies, even small ones and create a reasonable doubt they have to aquit.
Remember she was living in that house and never denied being there so there may not have been DNA... hers would be there anyway
True... eg the NewBaldwins... I just hope they dont do it here that would be a cop out...
But Tracy claimed she hit him because he was trying to stab her. She conned Clare into believing she was being abused by him and never once did she deny hitting him around the head.
How DNA can now prove she didn't do it despite the fact she told everyone it was self defence?
If Corrie is rewriting history here by making out she didn't even hit him then its a jump the shark moment I'm afraid.
Absolutely agree. The DNA was brought up early in this thread and I pointed out that DNA has certain limitations.
Corrie cannot change the backstory. Ultimately they are freeing a murderer. That's not impossible by means, but they can't soften it. She did it and it was premeditated!
yes but people are angry when clearly guilty people get off on those tehcnicalities so I 'm annoyed this will be the case in corrie
I don't think for a second she will be "proved innocent"
I think she will get off on a technicality. For example if paper work was not correctly processed it would not be admissible evidence. Recently there was a case where evidence was discounted because the date on the search warrant was wrong. Equally if she can find a way of introducing doubt about her conviction she is out. At a trial if reasonable doubt is established a judge must discharge the jury and go to retrail or set the person free and quash the original conviction. Innocence and guilt are not the be all and end all... unfortunately, because Tracy is guilty.
That's my issue. We know she did it, so to portray a miscarriage of justice is not unrealistic per se... but how appropriate is it?
Extremely inappropriate in light of of how the justice system works these days to be honest
I agree with that except that I reserve the right to moan:)