Talk:Arthur Allan Thomas

Rationale for this article
I created this article after discovering that it redirected to the Harvey and Jeanette Crewe page. It was very high profile case and considering the there is a book and film about it as well as Thomas receiving a Royal Pardon I thought that this article was justified. I am sure that there is sufficient info to get article beyond the stub stage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Pardon
Thomas did not receive "a royal pardon and compensation after being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for murder". He was granted a royal pardon on the basis that there was doubt as to the soundness of his conviction. This was not the same as anyone determining that the conviction and imprisonment was wrongful. Current police enquiries show that the police still believe that Thomas is guilty of the crime - he certainly remains the main suspect.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I note there is a lack of references in this article - I will apply a tag. Can you contribute any references to enable editors to improve/substantiate the article? Clarke43 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That sentence in our lead section does not actually say that the pardon was based on a finding of wrongful conviction, only that the pardon (and compensation) took place after the conviction and imprisonment. In fact the pardon itself essentially declared Thomas to be wrongfully convicted. (The Royal Commission report, on page 114, quotes the full High Court as saying that "He [Thomas] is, by reason of the pardon, deemed to have been wrongfully convicted.") So I think you (IP 203...) are mistaken. I do however agree with Clarke43 that our article should be more thoroughly referenced. The Royal Commission report provides a lot of information that would be useful for this. --Avenue (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrongful conviction?
More than one jury convicted Thomas. The last jury was in possession of all the facts known now. The conviction may have been unsound, and that is why he was pardoned. But to say that he was "wrongfully convicted" is unjustified. The Royal Commission may have used that term, but the wording is misleading. As with David Bain, the conviction may have been unsound, but was not necessarily unjustified. After all Thomas remains the primary suspect - indeed only suspect as all others were cleared. A pardon does not mean he is innocent of the crime.122.59.140.215 (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Talk pages are not the place for Soapboxing. If you have sources and can add to the article, do so. Akld guy (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)