Originally posted by P.L.A
View Post
The jury obviously believed VS when she said she had correctly identified Hanratty, and they did not believe (at least to the extent that it might create a reasonable doubt) Hanratty when he said he was in Rhyl. Given that VS had incorrectly identified someone innocent at a previous parade, one would have thought that this would have been sufficient to dent VS's credibility (not her honesty) in the minds of the jury.
It obviously did not and that was the crux of the case. But to describe it as a strong case is judicial hyperbole.
Comment