I have always argued that once you are convicted †of a crime the onus effectively shifts onto you to prove your innocence and as the 'Inside Justice' article indicates this is extremely difficult or even impossible.
A major problem is that a succession of legal teams can all have a bite at the cherry raising individual issues which arenít in themselves sufficient to sway the Appeal Courts. Often these individual interventions are less than comprehensive and lack something in their research and presentation. Once made however they tend not to be considered at any future hearings and now the 'need for finality' compounds the problem. As a result the accused is left frustrated that their whole case has never been properly heard.
Looking back on cases like Wullie Beck and Willie Gage it is clear to any objective assessor that they are either innocent or at the very least sufficient reliable evidence was not adduced to find them guilty. But still the courts and judges like Lord Carloway will not consider the whole case in the round but appear to heavily side with the conviction taking the prosecution evidence at its highest and the defence at its lowest.