This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
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)[reply]
