I said that a retrial would have to be based on "conclusive" new evidence. It doesn't allow for unlimited do-overs. There would have to be a greater burden of proof on new evidence in a future pre-trial hearing in order to permit the new trial to even occur. It would also permit a retrial based on examination of the original evidence with new technology, as long as the findings are conclusive.
A number of innocent people have been freed from jail because of this, shouldn't the opposite be permitted?
Now that I reflect further on it, though, most juries would cop out and return a Not Proven verdict rather than be brave enough to take the extra step to Not Guilty, leaving the defendant forever tarnished. So, while I think the idea has some merit, the end result is not worthwhile.
Well, no matter, after David is found not guilty his life will be a difucult one. His life has been ruined. There are those who will never see anything but a anti-social pedophilic child killer. That is beyond sad.