In his 30 November 2000 interview with Paxman*, BB stated:
But a judgement has to be made, and my colleagues and I reached the judgement we did in the light of what we felt to be irrefutable evidence, not opinion, evidence.
However, Fox
now says that it was 'poor legal advice' which led to the flawed finding.
So, BB, which was it? 'Irrefutable evidence' or 'Poor legal advice'?
Why was Fox so keen to find this wriggle room for Wratten and Day? And why has their silence following this decision been so deafening? I guess all the journos were too busy with Murdoch's dirt to bother doorstopping BB for a response?
The media dropped the whole thing after 1 day. 17 years to overthrow a miscarriage of justice and yet the media only found time to report it for one day.....
*see BBC News | NEWSNIGHT | Chinook transcript for the full transcript.