Originally Posted by Webby

PS Just looking at your "media reports"....

According to them there "should" be massive amounts of evidence to prove the innocence of the defendant - in fact, to a silly degree. Time will tell on the reality of that....

The difference is this is not US law and neither prosecution or defense have to parade themselves in front of cameras with their "verbal" - and the court only relies on actual evidence.

On the flip side - smell there is a possible defense in areas, - as long as lying witnesses stay the hell out or admit the truth. His witnesses did him no favors - but could have got him that guilty verdict.