The BBC one?

Just trying to grasp what the prosecution are up to. What they have presented so far appears to amount to sweet FA when previous reports indicate that they have real hard evidence. So why not present the hardcore stuff? Surely the (presumably very well paid) lawyers wouldn't be spinning out the trial on public money?

Mate of mine was on jury service many years ago and found that's exactly what the prosecution did: open and shut case and one piece of evidence that had the crim bang to rights, which appeared on day 3 after much waffling that the Judge eventually cut short.

Posted By: BerlinCanary, Jan 17, 15:59:56