If that's the case then the verdict is a travesty.Police cover-up from day one. Some things never change.
That his defence lawyers are able to go back and challenge settled issues and he is able to contradict admissions made in previous trials seems perverse to say the least.
Aye, true enough.Burden of proof is high in such matters
Rather making my point on the other thread.
Read this from upthread 2d.We need to read the judgment as to why he was found not guilty.
Judges don’t reach decisions like this lightly.
There is guilt but it can’t be laid at the feet of one person I suspect.
Perhaps the police force itself should be put on trial.
People died, relatives and survivors need an answer.
Burden of proof is high in such matters