egafd.com

RoddersUK wrote:

but it was "overlooked" by his superiors.


No doubt "Words of advice were given" which seems to be the standard line these days. (And probably amount to "don't get caught next time, lad")

David Johnson wrote:

> "The jury heard the evidence before them, they would not have
> been told about the findings of the inquest."
>
> The same evidence was put to the jury in the manslaughter
> trial. Why wouldn't it?
>
> Your argument is going round in circles. I have already
> discarded your thoughts on whether a severe beating was
> important or not.
>
> I don't want to waste any more time on this.

There is no point having a strop because a jury does not agree with you. Unless you have heard all the evidence they did you are just venting your prejudice.