In 2010 a man was found guilty of murdering his wife with an iron bar and
given twenty years in prison. All the evidence was circumstantial, no
forensic investigation was performed, because the police had lost the
piece of different coloured hair found on the pillow and the iron bar recovered from a high wall down the road, was sneezed on by the constable.
The convicted man was a sub-postmaster and subject to the same accounting problems as others and as a consequence the trial heard evidence from a
Post Office investigator. The jury was persuaded that he had killed his
wife, because she had found out about the accounting short fall. It was
also mentioned at trial that he had £40,000 debt on credit cards, but he
had been paying money into the Post Office system to reduce the defecit.
His wife had a couple of affairs, but they had fizzled out before the
murder and the men involved gave evidence at the trial. A balaclava and
gloves were recovered about 30 minutes distance away, but didn't didn't
appear to play any part of the defence evidence.

I have not seen the the court details, only newspaper reports, but it
seems an unsound conviction in the light of Horizon.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 09:08:52 UTC, Smolley wrote:

In 2010 a man was found guilty of murdering his wife with an iron bar and given twenty years in prison.
The convicted man was a sub-postmaster and subject to the same accounting problems as others and as a consequence the trial heard evidence from a
Post Office investigator. The jury was persuaded that he had killed his
wife, because she had found out about the accounting short fall.
I have not seen the the court details, only newspaper reports, but it
seems an unsound conviction in the light of Horizon.

I don't think the Horizon issue is relevant. There was an accounting shortfall. It was (probably) due to accounting errors by Horizon, not by the sub-postmaster, but the sub-postmaster believed it to exist, and was unable to prove it didn't.

Owain

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 08:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Smolley <me@rest.uk> wrote:

In 2010 a man was found guilty of murdering his wife with an iron bar and >given twenty years in prison. All the evidence was circumstantial, no >forensic investigation was performed, because the police had lost the
piece of different coloured hair found on the pillow and the iron bar >recovered from a high wall down the road, was sneezed on by the constable. >The convicted man was a sub-postmaster and subject to the same accounting >problems as others and as a consequence the trial heard evidence from a
Post Office investigator. The jury was persuaded that he had killed his
wife, because she had found out about the accounting short fall. It was
also mentioned at trial that he had £40,000 debt on credit cards, but he
had been paying money into the Post Office system to reduce the defecit.
His wife had a couple of affairs, but they had fizzled out before the
murder and the men involved gave evidence at the trial. A balaclava and >gloves were recovered about 30 minutes distance away, but didn't didn't >appear to play any part of the defence evidence.

I have not seen the the court details, only newspaper reports, but it
seems an unsound conviction in the light of Horizon.

That's what I think he's claiming, which is why it's been in the
newspapers.
As an aside, the judge at one of the Horizon trials said that he
hadn't seen any evidence of theft but he still allowed a guilty
virdict.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)