Many high profile cases are re-investigated decades/centuries after they happened and we are sometimes able to change our view on an event based on evidence that can now be examined that there was no technology for in the past. Today, would all of these errors, prejudices, and questionable evidence alter the verdict of a jury? I personally question whether he was guilty or not – but even more so, in my opinion his trial was unfair. Have you developed an opinion either way on this case? What is the most damning evidence against him or the piece of evidence that makes you question the verdict against him?
Copyright © 2011 by The Maiden’s Court