Bit off topic - sorry - but in response to Marly's pointer to the Leanne Holland case - the police really do not like losing, do they? Graham Stafford has had his conviction quashed, and there are several high profile people who are convinced of his innocence, including criminologists, and an ex-detective who worked on the case. Yet the police case has only ever focused on the one suspect, and they STILL can't get their focus off him.
I really have to wonder sometimes. I've read quite a bit about that case, and I'm probably leaning fairly heavily to the side that believes that Stafford was innocent all along. But the police have just spent 2 years allegedly reviewing their own case, and come to the conclusion - still - that it WAS him.
So - who is right? The public prosecutor won't try him again, so we'll never find out this "new evidence" the police say they have. And criminologists like Paul Wilson are convinced he is innocent, and that they in fact know who DID do it.
Are we looking at police with blinkers on here, or a criminal who is simply maintaining his innocence despite everything? And will we ever really find out?
Sorry for the off-topic reference. Back to normal service now....