Originally Posted by
biscuit74
It shows, again, what a lottery our 'justice system' can be. Find the right angle to sow doubt, add an impressive medical expert and enough smoke and mirrors soon exists for a good defence lawyer to work with. Mr Hill got some very good and no doubt expensive advice and stuck to his story rigorously throughout. Enough doubt was sown. .
I expect few people will change their private views based on this result, which was arrived at by a jury who were probably not themselves pilots.
His statement after the trial was predictable and anodyne - what else could he say? There is really nothing that he could have said which would make any difference, regardless of how the verdict went.
So you are saying every jury should be qualified in the role they are being asked to assess ? what a load of tosh.