Have to say when i read the prosecution's opening address

All "may" have come from Stephen's jumper or "could" have got there as a result of. Coupled with the fact they openly admit to two evidence handling cock-ups and also admit they can't show anything other than these two were part of the gang (but not that they inflcited any fatal blows) and my initial thoughst were always that the evidence was very unconvincing. I just don't see how they have got enough to convict beyond reasonable doubt. I also can't really see how these two can get a fair trial given that everyone knows them from the original trial.

I think its a case of the police being convinced it was that gang but just can't quite nail any of them for it. Whether that has led to mistakes or something more sinister like planting of evidence is open to debate.

Posted By: Jim, Nov 22, 14:57:05