0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
as i can see this guy had no credible cliam to be inocent.i still think its an interesting case though.http://www.staffspasttrack.org.uk/exhibit/palmer/default.htm
im inclined to think he was guilty the evidence was purely circumstancel though i agree.
well to me there just seem to be to many coincidences.the evidence was circumstantial .but that forensic hardly existed in those days.