Talk:Sam Hallam

Untitled
There are two views you can take of this: (a) At face value it seems incredible that (i) so weak a case reached court at all, (ii) that the judge did not instruct the jury to acquit, (iii) that the conviction was not overturned at the first appeal and (iv) that the prosecution sat on their hands until the day of the second appeal (by which time Hallam's phone had been examined, showing that he had been nowhere near the scene of the crime) before admitting that there was any problem with their case. If this astonishing picture is accurate, what confidence can anyone have in British justice? And now this is out in the open, why are heads not rolling? (b) The whole story is not being told - in which case a more detailed view of the original prosecution case needs to be presented. Everything here at the moment reflects the post-acquittal spin. 141.241.26.21 (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)