And you believe they were presented with a genuine portrayal of the incident and evidence?
Roch
In all honesty it does not matter what I think.
And in a way I could also say 'exactly' as it could be argued you have indirectly identified / summarised my point.
Mike claims to have something (for over 8 years) which can prove the trial was not a genuine portrayal of both the incident and the evidenced as presented............... and yet Mike does nothing with it despite all his representations of Jeremy being innocent of the crimes he has been charged with and found guilty of committing.
This I do not understand and appears totally illogical to me.