I've never said LM is proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Had I been on the jury, I couldn't have found LM guilty based on the evidence presented in court, and I was surprised by the verdict at the time.
The majority of the jury found him guilty.
SM's refusal to provide an alibi is a massive issue - some will claim that was due to intimidation, etc - I doubt that.
Had I been on that jury I would have had no hesitation in finding him guilty and I would have had no doubt of that given the evidence presented in court by the prosecution.
Don't forget Mitchell had one of Scotland's foremost advocates presenting his case and doing his best for him. But his sharpness was not enough to overcome the elimination process the police had carried out on other named individuals, the weight of the circumstantial evidence presented against him or the obvious fabrication of Mitchell's alibi.
If you have to lie about where you were, in my opinion you have something to hide.
We can get a flavour of the evidence provided at trial when reading about Mitchell's appeals to the Law Lords who explained exactly why they upheld the judgement made at Mitchell's original trial.
I think Mitchell had a fair trial which is a damn sight more than Jodi Jones was allowed or her family in the years since and I am singularly unimpressed by the unashamed innuendo and stretching of 'truths' out of context exhibited by the campaigners on Mitchell's behalf.
I am glad the jury at Mitchell's trial had the courage of their convictions to go for the outcome which kept what they obviously believed to be an exceptionally dangerous man off the streets.