"I am with you on this. In a legal sense he is not guilty. BUT and it is a big BUT he seems likely to have done the deed."
Last time I looked "seems likely" isn't beyond reasonable doubt, and doesn't get you banged up for life.
The evidence of this case is that he had to have left his daughters in the car, popped into the house, swiftly battered Billy Jo to death, and then nipped out again as if nothing was wrong. To me, that seems unlikely.
The reason he was convicted at his first trial was because of the microscopic droplets of blood on his sweater. In that case it's very similar to the Barry George case. Forensic science isn't like CSI Miami. It can find minute quantities of blood or gunshot residue, but it cannot explain how they got there. In this case, he argued on appeal that as he picked Billy Jo's body up, this forced out the air in her lungs, expelling the tiny droplets of blood from her nose. The total amount of blood on his jumper amounted to less than one normal drop, but it had been distributed in a fine spray. If he had battered her to death with a tent peg, as alleged, I would have expected a damn site more blood to have been on him.
Frankly, he was screwed when the cops found he had lied on his CV to get his teaching job. As far as they were concerned, that made him a villain. Of course, no cop has ever lied on oath to get a conviction, so that's OK.
Barry George
Re: Barry George
the only way that barry george is guilty is if he is actually ivan dobsky, that is to say he some how astrally projected a space hopper to shoot and kill jill dando whilst he was innocently masturbating to the bbc in house magazine.