As with the discussions that have been had on here over the Ched Evans case

There is a clear distinction between whether someone may be guilty of a crime and whether there is sufficient evidence to safely convict someone of a crime.

This is a case where there is just not enough evidence to convict safely so the decision not to continue the proceedings is right. Whether or not he did it I have no idea. The one element of it that troubles me is the meetings with the taxi driver at the hotel after she had been car-jacked/killed and at (at least one of) which he admits to giving him the money, supposedly for a helicopter trip. That looks very suspicious to me and you wonder of seeing that simply convinced the police that he was guilty from the outset meaning that they did not perhaps subsequently investigate the matter as well/thoroughly as they should have done.

Posted By: Jim, Dec 8, 12:51:04