The words MEALY MOUTHED spring to mind.

A polite description on your part JK....

As she will know full well the question is not whether further evidence came to light subsequently, it is what evidence did police and prosecutors have at the time?

Shame on her.

Exactly and which should have been unearthed and discovered 17 years ago, had they been FIT FOR PURPOSE.

The problem lies in the condition REAL POSSIBILITY. The CCRC, because it has neither the funds, the training nor the tools to investigate, has considered the condition a CERTAINTY, not a real possibility. It is the job of Judges or Jurors to decide whether police breaches could have changed a verdict. Whether accidental or intentional, such things as not disclosing damning evidence to a defence team may have caused a major difference in how a jury viewed something.

My jury in 2001 took almost three days after a five day trial before deciding I was guilty (I was not). Had they heard that the main claimant had told a totally different story to the News of the World some years earlier, in an attempt to get £250,000, and that the News of the World had considered his tale total fantasy and rubbish, there is a REAL POSSIBILITY they would have rejected, not accepted, his police claims and would have acquitted me on all charges.

It's not certain but it's very possible. Only Judges can decide whether or not that would have happened.