Apologies for the 'piss takes and pipe dreams' comment. 
That's okay. I understand that you and many others will not see the official version of the case in this light. But I think the point I'm trying to make (badly) is the following:
A case against somebody is in some way falsified or at the very least 'sexed up'. The case then becomes accepted at large by many... but by no means all.
Those responsible for the falsification are likely to cover their tracks, making it very difficult for other people to later come along and fully piece together what really took place.
Because of the track covering, the people who come along and try to piece together what really took place are accused of being unable to substantiate their claims and theories.
But the people who are accusing track un-coverers regarding this lack of substantiation, have themselves fallen in to the trap of accepting a false or sexed up case in the first place. Since that false case is already down on paper, anyone wishing to refer to it in order to substantiate their own arguments against those of the track un-coverers, can do so with relative ease.
:D
