Corrie - how is Tracy getting out of prison?

GoldenBoy81GoldenBoy81 Posts: 312
Forum Member
Any spoilers or theories?
«1

Comments

  • I did It First!I did It First! Posts: 528
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Its all impossible to be honest but with soap you just have to accept these things and not really moan.
  • Brendan TBrendan T Posts: 235
    Forum Member
    Retrial.
  • revolver44revolver44 Posts: 22,766
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Shawshank style - wading through shite.
  • LenfaircloughLenfairclough Posts: 1,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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...
  • Hound of LoveHound of Love Posts: 79,896
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    revolver44 wrote: »
    Shawshank style - wading through shite.

    :D:D

    Mind you, that would be more plausible than the nonsense we will endure next month
  • LenfaircloughLenfairclough Posts: 1,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    :D: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
  • Soap DodgerSoap Dodger Posts: 226
    Forum Member
    My neice phoned me yesterday and told me she had read in the new editon of Soap Magazine that Tracey gets out based on a re-trial!!!
  • TheSlayer10TheSlayer10 Posts: 1,866
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I read that they find DNA evidence that proves she didn't kill him
  • LenfaircloughLenfairclough Posts: 1,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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...
  • PyramidbreadPyramidbread Posts: 10,440
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    A retrial is more realistic than Cain's way of escaping a sentence in Emmerdale! :eek:
  • TheSlayer10TheSlayer10 Posts: 1,866
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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
  • LenfaircloughLenfairclough Posts: 1,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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!
  • Pop_ArtPop_Art Posts: 5,116
    Forum Member
    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???
  • TheSlayer10TheSlayer10 Posts: 1,866
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pop_Art wrote: »
    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 ;)
  • LenfaircloughLenfairclough Posts: 1,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pop_Art wrote: »
    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
  • LenfaircloughLenfairclough Posts: 1,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Soaps tend to like to change history to suit themselves ;)

    True... eg the NewBaldwins... I just hope they dont do it here that would be a cop out...
  • Pop_ArtPop_Art Posts: 5,116
    Forum Member
    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.
  • LenfaircloughLenfairclough Posts: 1,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pop_Art wrote: »
    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!
  • Sorcha_27Sorcha_27 Posts: 138,514
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    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

    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
  • LenfaircloughLenfairclough Posts: 1,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • LenfaircloughLenfairclough Posts: 1,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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

    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?
  • Sorcha_27Sorcha_27 Posts: 138,514
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    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
  • AddisonianAddisonian Posts: 16,377
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sounds diabolical to be honest
  • robertaloud30robertaloud30 Posts: 3,394
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Its all impossible to be honest but with soap you just have to accept these things and not really moan.

    I agree with that except that I reserve the right to moan:)
Sign In or Register to comment.