“and yet the OP and poll is guilty or not guilty.”
I’m honestly bored of having to endlessly repeat that this is how the burden of proof works in law. British courts do not find anyone ‘innocent’. ‘Not guilty’ does not mean innocent. It means that the burden of proof has not been met and as a result there is reasonable doubt. If you feel that the case needs to be reviewed then you have reasonable doubt. That IS by definition a ‘not guilty’ position in British courts.
“If we are going to face the squeamishness of what this actually boils down to, how do you feel about potentially - yes potentially - undermining the conviction of a guilty woman? What does that look like on the other side?”
The presumption of innocence is a core principle in UK law and is explicitly protected under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (mirroring the European Convention on Human Rights) In English Common Law going back to at least the 15th century, juries were urged to err on the side of acquittal if uncertain. This is one of the foundational pillars of British justice, arguably it’s the most important one. This principle is a huge reason why British justice has always had such an excellent reputation worldwide. It’s what keeps us away from the savagery of literal witch trials. Arguing to abandon it is a very hot take, but to answer your question:
“how do you feel about potentially - yes potentially - undermining the conviction of a guilty woman? What does that look like on the other side?”
First, no one has suggested simply letting her out based on vibes, there have been multiple credible and testable in-depth challenges to the conviction from a variety of esteemed and relevant and independent experts. At this stage I don’t think there remains a shred of evidence which hasn’t been credibly challenged. This has been going on for at least a year.
Collectively this has amounted to a thorough and rigorous challenge from credible sources who have no skin in the game. What is being asked for is that the evidence be properly reviewed, with credible expert oversight, so that the conviction can either be made safe or vacated.
In that context if she is again found to be guilty then she will stay where she is but the public will be reassured that justice has been fair and rigorous. If she is found not guilty then she will not be a guilty woman when she is released. She will have been proven innocent. It’ll be the exact same as anyone else who is charged with murder not being convicted. You probably aren’t even aware of most of them.
“And yes, the tone of the thread is aggressive - contrary at the very best. This hasn’t really been a discussion.”
I disagree. There has been plenty of interesting discussion for most of the thread. It’s a debate. Challenge (respectful and in good faith, ideally evidenced and factual) is absolutely fine from both sides. It is only a handful of people that I see popping in just to make inflammatory statements, fling insults, jeer or huff if they aren’t simply agreed with without challenge. None of that matters in the wider context of the conversation here though.