Search results

I'm the opposite, I can't think how the jury could find him guilty when there is nothing concrete. Yes, he likely did it (70% sure), but is that enough? For me there's no forensic evidence to prove it was him and not somebody else who lived or had access to the house. The witnesses say she...

But perhaps he would say that to protect somebody, that's all I'm saying.

My issue with this case is that there is a lot that doesn't add up. How can it be proved that it was IS and not another person at the property. These statements are starting make me thing if IS didn't do it then one the sons must have. With that conjecture, perhaps IS is just trying to...

So after IS taking the stand is that the end of the trail? or do the defence now go?

What's the UK law for the jury? Does the jury have to think 100% guilty to reach that conclusion or is most likely acceptable. IMO at the moment there is no concrete proof it was IS, just all circumstantial. There are other parties that could of known of the cesspit, am I allowed to suggest...

New here and been following the case on Cambridge news. For a long time I thought guilty but starting to some doubts. For me: The cesspit lid possibly too much for him to lift on his own being injured. The bank account accessed while he was not at home. I know there are ways but why go...