From a Liverpool supporter on RAWK - pretty much on the money, imo:
"I’m sorry but this was always going to happen because the whole defence was run on emotion, rather than on solid facts. The problem can be summarised like this:
The prosecution presented a case which said that upwards of 20 people, including some British, saw Michael do it.
The defence:
1. Did nothing to undermine the credibility of the eyewitness accounts (it was 5.00am, people had been drinking all night, there would have been many discrepancies in their accounts).
2. Chose as “facts” events which could easily be disproved. Some were embellished or white lies were added – and they got found out. These embellishments were unnecessary and weakened the case.
3. Lazy journalists, like Brian Reade, repeated these embellishments, put them in print and people have now come to treat them as gospel.
4. The key weapon for the defence was emotion – and almost every comment in this thread is laced with emotion. This post will generate negative emotion. Emotion works well on local politicians (it’s a vote winner) but falls flat when you get to the level of politicians who have to make policy or establish precedent.
Straw’s dilemma is this:
1. He has been presented with a dossier which would almost certainly have led to conviction in a British court (substantial eyewitness testimony).
2. If he gives a pardon based on his personal feelings then other countries will not send British people back to serve their term.
3. Similarly, anybody convicted abroad will beat a path to his door (and the door of every subsequent Home Secretary) looking for a pardon."
