I'm biased, I'm afraid, knowing both the way the police work now and the media agenda.
Your views, if you saw it?

I did see the trailor, where Sir Trevor asked him why the Jury didn't believe him.

Would have been interesting to see how he responded.

I would suggest that by the time the media had been telling everyone (for nine years !!!) that he DID do it, getting someone to believe the opposite would be quite a challenge !

Sion's point about the difference between reality and tabloid world is SO true.
He has also found overwhelming support from "the public".
And I actually think the media is starting to realise that they are out of step with common sense and decency.
The stories I could tell about the media coverage of major news stories... it boggles the mind. One agenda, blinkered approach, blind repetition of catch phrases and simple headlines, wicked editing, deliberate "misunderstanding" of statements...
My eyes have been SO opened by the last five years.
I would not have missed them for anything.

In the weeks (months sometimes) leading up to trials, the newspapers carry endless stories, mostly fabricated no doubt, making it inconceivable that certain people will get an impartial and fair trial. It has cost the taxpayer millions in cases being thrown out and retrials having to be organised in some cases. While we have a jury system, how can they seriously expect people to be open minded and impartial, after facing months of stories and speculation ? Just imagine for one moment if Ian Huntley had been innocent... what chance would we have had in a court thanks to the media ?

save for the basic FACTS prior to someone being convicted or acquitted.

As the Police knew well... what other reason was there for their conduct?
Trawl By Media.

Imagine your local vicar or doctor having a false charge against them,e.g. some 20 stone woman believing her 29 year old handsome doctor tried it on with her...I guarantee you'd find another 10 in the parish who'd say "oh yes he tried it with me as well".Any moment of sympathy would be turned into a "come-on". It's human nature, within the lesser intelligent members of society, to actually believe their own lies.The truth gets lost.

... witnesses had been paid several thousand pounds each to testify against Rose West at her trial, and the judge permitted their "evidence" despite this obvious media sponsorship. This doesn't automatically mean she wasn't guilty, but it does discredit the entire trial process and leaves me asking serious questions about the system.

I personally think he is quilty but I don't want to say any allegations etc but there many clues that for me he is probably guilty.

Blood on his clothes, bin liners outside the house near she was attacked, the weapon used was on his own property, some of her DNA was on him, when he was interviewed his body language implied that he is lying.

I've studied body language so I know that sometimes someone is lying.

So many clues but so little evidence - still I was pleased he got some years in custody

Blood on his clothes is explained by he having been bending over her when he discovered her. There would have been more blood on him if he was the murderer.

The weapon being on his property is hardly surprising as that is where the murder took place.

Her DNA being on him - same explanation as the blood. Plus the fact that they lived together and had been in regular close contact.

Body language can be confused by nervous unrest. Anyone placed in his situation would display uncomfortable body language.

None of this so called evidence is sufficient to prove that he was guilty.