Yankee Doodle: Thanks for a well-thought-out contribution to the discussion. Obviously we have different views of the quality of evidence, but nevertheless, I’m always glad to get a reasoned response instead of knee-jerk replies.

Obviously the prosecution stands or falls on the phone evidence. The phone evidence placed him in or around the house at the crucial time. If there is a potentially innocent explanation for this, he is entitled to the benefit of that innocent explanation. However, no such explanation was proffered.

While the defence was not obliged to provide that innocent explanation, the lies of the accused as to his whereabouts on the morning in question make it very difficult for the jury to entertain the possibility that if he was there, he was there for legitimate reasons. This is particularly so when coupled with the overwhelming evidence of motive and the evidence of opportunity. In reality, the only question they were then left with was whether the phone evidence was reliable.

The defence case was that he was in Broadstone bus depot, not that he was in Broadstone bus depot but that if he was not in Broadstone bus depot but in the Naul then he was there for legitimate reasons. The defence were not entitled to have their cake and eat it too.

The evidence came down to the alibi versus the phone evidence and the phone evidence was incredibly thorough and well corroborated. The alibi evidence was weak. In the circumstances, the case was actually a slam dunk for the prosecution and no jury could be criticised for believing there was no reasonable doubt.

As for the media intrusion, while unfortunate, they were entitled to report the case and for the most part they reported the facts. The jury were also cautioned by the trial judge on a number of occasions to ignore the reporting. There is no reason to believe the jurors didn’t respect their oaths.

The unease with circumstantial evidence is understandable. Standing alone none of the elements proved guilt but taken together they built up to form a web of coincidences that even the most suggestible person could not reconcile with an innocent explanation.

I think it would be very unfair to criticise the jury in this case. The guards also need to take a great deal of credit for an exceptionally thorough investigation.

As far as I can see, this is a clear sign that society is dumbing down and losing its critical faculties.

They can’t tell the difference between weight of evidence and proof. If I keep flinging statements at you, I’ll eventually wear you down.

What has happened to logic? Gone in a tide of txt spk.