What happened to the old system where if there was/ is a shred of doubt because there is no hard evidence then the defendant MUST be found not guilty?

He's been convicted on heresay with a proven no dna and no phone record.

It's unacceptable under any circumstances and people should voice their opinion. Since when has the evidence of paid proven , addicted admitted liars been absolute proof? The police have a lot to answer for , their lies contributed to the outcome. It smacks of a conviction no matter what the cost.

This is an obvious case of miscarriage of justice , a reconsideration of the evidence should be instigated immediately

There is an obvious misuse of justice and human rights come into question.

Since when has evidence of admitted liars and addicts override our law system that says that if there is the slightest doubt then the defendant should be found NOT GUILTY. There is absolutely no way a jury could debate and agree on the evidence in half hour.

When Chads grandmother and Aunty were interviewed by police before the charges were laid they were told that Chad was definitely with his Aunty on that day/night, they answered " we'll charge him anyway". Something not right with the whole thing.

Stand up people for fairness and truth. Enough of this Sate being controlled by the police