In the Sky doc Anthony Arldige said he was concerned the judge was showing bias. I don't think his concern was for Bamber but rather in his experience jurors often go against the judge if they feel he/she is leading them too much/showing bias.
Lots of things probably should have happened at trial but it is what it is!
How many circumstances that aligned were merely coincidence; and how many were by design?
A group of officers willing to frame a 'suspect'.
Large scale non-disclosure.
A group of relatives not served well by the wills of Nevill and June, who became prosecution witnesses.
A barrister who had never defended before and showed the prosecution way too much respect.
A pre-trial 'cheque-book journalism' agreement, (25K for a guilty verdict) masquerading as a post trial agreement.
A 'washed' star witness, provided with immunity from prosecution.
A judge involved in previous wrongful convictions, in another case involving corrupt police officers.
A SIO who retired after the first appeal was refused and was found to be employed by the very prosecution witness who had him installed as SIO in the first place.
Subsequent appeals and referrals having to take place with a backdrop of non-disclosure, despite a court order and despite the CCRC having powers.
Propaganda masquerading as fact based drama or documentaries (with glaring omissions and lack of depth).
You are right, it is what it is.. Not a very good advert for British justice or media journalism.
