We don't know all the evidence that was presented anyway so anyone even 'thinking' he should have been found guilty really should rethink their position. As much as we'd like to believe a jury can find 'against' the evidence it doesn't happen.

Evidence was presented as prosecution, evidence was presented as defence. The jury found in favour of Redknapp therefore no matter how 'aggrieved' one might feel about the result, the guy IS innocent.

The real crime is the way the whole case against him was conducted - a pathetic waste of OUR money. Needless to say, no-one will be brought to account over wasting £8,000,000 but I have no doubts that "lessons will be learned".

f*ck - the whole lot of them..... police, CPS etc...... tw@ts.

_________________
This post may contain nuts

Yes it does Dave, frequently.

I was on a case and most of the Jury didn't understand the evidence, because it was too complicated and technical.

_________________
If you feel you have benefited from the Free advice given on the Forum, Please consider making a donation to UHM's Nominated charity, read all about it and donate here :

donnas-dream-house-charity-t52110.html