Michael in Swansea, I raised that question and I#d have expected a reply so they must be very busy. I would say go ahead if still interested - I'll take the rap if I've called it wrong. I do think it;s worth writing letters because for one I believe there is a real chance of a reprieve.

Grab, a reprieve doesn't mean freedom - I wouldn't expect or suggest that the guy should go free maybe for many years. OVciously the potential for re-offending would be assessed as part of any decision on whether to release him.

DougR, was the bit you failed to appreciate: "Thanks for the encouragement DougR, but I wasn't saying Beazley should be exonerated, just that there's a case for clemency. (Not yours Doug - I don't believe in miracles.)"?

For once I wasn't trying to be as aggressive as you may have thought - I just phrased it badly. I meant that though there may be a good case for clemency, I wouldn't expect clemency from you. I can't see you bridling at that, so my phrasing must have led you to think something worse.

But two other points, DougR: 1) I'm still curious to know whether you recognised any grey areas, and 2) When you say PROVED, that's OK if you recognise that this is not as easy as it sounds. For instance it is now widely recognised, including in the US, that confessional evidence can be unreliable, and even forensic evidence may not be what it seems. (A senior forensic expert in the UK (west midlands) was instrumental in securing prison sentences for many innocent people, by giving perversely false testimony against them.