Beardy you say
I haven't seen nor have I read the evidence transcripts. But, I have difficulty reconciling that credible evidence, as reported from the court
But the thing about what was reported from the court by national papers is that it was, by and large, misleading, or at least incomplete!
Much of the national press took their information from the prosecution's opening statement - which, by the way, the prosecution team had distributed beforehand to all and sundry in a 53-page document. So reporters could report it as if they'd actually heard it said in court.
Thereafter, for the rest of the eight week trial, the national press was often noticeable by its absence. So they mostly missed the defence's expert evidence that later persuaded the jury. I had occasion to point out this shortcoming to a senior broadsheet reporter later, but he was not interested.
airsound