1) He apparently did not qualify for compensation after spending time incarcerated. Whyever not, if he were deemed 'innocent'?
2) The police seemingly made few efforts to find another killer. Why so?
3) George had a shocking criminal history.
4) Conspiracy theories blaming Serbia were highly dubious and heavily sensationalised by the media.
5) Having seen George being interviewed on TV - it is clear that he is far from being the dimwit suggested by those promoting his case.
I am not questioning the eventual acquittal. The evidence against him would not have had me voting for a conviction in the first place, had I been on the jury.
Had it been a decision 'on the balance of probabilities' - a conviction would, IMHO, have been a certainty.
However, in the UK, we rely on 'beyond reasonable doubt' and for me, that would have been a step too far.
