well they could not tell the difference between a male and a female or count bodies so personally I think you are wrong . I think they just retracted the statements because it was important to the case IMO 
You are not reading the decision correctly. The court differentiated statements by witnesses, the raid team, and statements by non-witnesses, hearsay. The court summarized the damage the raid team admitting to causing and said the damage the defence attributed is not listed. The defence relied on 3 pieces of hearsay to suggest the raid team did additional damage beyond what the raid team admitted to.
One piece of hearsay was the Dickinson Report and the other was a statement by crime scene officer Cook.
Officer Cook admitted the person who told him the claim was not a member of the raid team. The person who told officer Cook was not a witness so someone had to tell that person before that person could tell Cook. This is why the court calls it double hearsay.
The court was unable to determine whether it was officer Cook or someone else who told Dickinson what he put in his report. There was no evidence that it had come from any member of the raid team. Since there was nothing to establish it had been told to him from a raid team member it was declared to be unreliable hearsay.
The third piece was a report by Mr. Ainsley. His report didn't attribute damage beyond what the raid team put in their statements so the court didn't consider it to support the allegations made by the defence.
