Studi,
You are correct - I did not attend the tribunal either and my comments are also based on rumours (a proon speciality) and by what I have seen in the media.
The same is probably true of most people here and by necessity (or definition of PPRUNE) most topics discussed here are simply 'trial by media' a situation we all jump up and down about when it refers to an aviation incident where we know a few more of the facts than have been reported.
I would say that 'the law is an ass' is a known saying for a reason (not quite as harsh as that in this case). There are numerous examples such as the judge who determined that a young women who was raped had been 'asking for it' by wearing a short skirt! Examples such as that don't fill me with confidence that all neutral 'justice dispensers' are any more infallible than anyone else.
Those 'facts' (I accept they are unsubstantiated) I mentioned may have been taken into account, may have been disproved, may have been entirely speculative or fictional - I don't know.
All I can do is add my tuppenceworth and read everone elses (some better informed than others) and give my opinion. That way we can all comment on cases we don't have first hand knowledge of and hopefully learn from someone who does -I find that also works for things like dinner party conversation; if I only entered conversations about subjects I knew indise out and could back up with documented evidence I would be a lot quieter (and I wouldn't learn as much by being corrected/informed by those more learned on a sublject than myself)
But after all that - I personally still find it hard to believe that he tracked Peter X down internationally and approached him with a wepon which he then used to murder him in cold blood (and in front of his family) without any degree of premeditation.