When HCW said, 23 months ago, that he was 100% sure CB killed MM, I thought "At last!".
But 23 months later, I am thinking: "Can you be 100% sure without proof?". Because if HCW has proof, why did not he charge CB yet?
So, I think HCW has the intuition, or circumstancial evidence, that CB killed MM, and could be 99% sure, or even 99.9% sure, but not 100%.
And now I am thinking that those HCW statements without making charges to CB were a gross error, because they produced a "media trial". It is a pity, because I think HCW is a good person.
But why did they do the public appeal without saying CB was the killer of MM?
Just my opinion.