JK wrote:I've had so many friends try and engage me in conversation and this is one topic I generally refuse to get drawn into, because simply I wasn't there and I don't know what happened. If there's irrefutable proof then fry him and anyone else guilty of such heinous crimes, but if there isn't, how can ya hang someone for it?
And that's the rub for the majority of criminal cases - it often boils down to a 'he said-she said' scenario in which no-one else knows what really happened.
From the prosecution's point of view, it's like trying to do a jigsaw where they know they don't have all the pieces, but they hope there's enough to convince the jury that what they've got is the same as the picture on the box. In this case, the other witnesses at the church provided what was sufficient to count as reasonable doubt. In other words, the High Court thought there was some important jigsaw pieces missing.