'That' trial and the supressed information

I believe firmly in the rule of law, and that the judicial system gets it right 99.99% of the time. Where there is a wrongful conviction, the appeal system corrects the errors in 99.99% of cases.

I've always believed that juries are made up of enough people to include those intelligent enough to understand that they can only consider the evidence presented to them during the trial - not any media reporting they have heard prior. Any prejudicial information given as a reason to convict would be not considered by the rest of the jury, and the juror would have to either find another reason for a conviction, or face the trial judge (who would presumably dismiss them).

So, my opinion of the verdict in the case against Shipton, Schollum and Rickards is that the jury heard all the evidence and found it was not strong enough to convict - as long as they referred only to the evidence presented to them during the trial.

As to the suppressed information, I'm not a fan of judges deciding what the public can hear and not hear.

I've disabled comments cause I don't want to be continually checking them for .