Even if the police colleague witnessed what happened, the burden of proof still lies with the prosecution to prove that the 3 lads knew they was dragging the policeman behind them.

To have a murder charge stick, the prosecution has to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the 3 lads knew they was dragging the policeman behind them.

Not seeing the court transcripts it's impossible to know what was actually said in court and what evidence the prosecution had (cannot rely on news media). If the transcripts prove that the prosecution had enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 3 lads knew they was dragging the policeman behind them, then yes a return of 'murder' should have come from the jury.

If the Attorney General does find a case that the jury was 'threatened' and thus affecting the juries finding, wont the defence lawyer demand a mistrial and demand the 3 lads be set free?

I have no doubt that a defence lawyer would try that on.

However, rather than set them free, there should be a new trial with jury members identities kept secret until the last minute and thereafter kept isolated from any contact from third parties.

Even if the police colleague witnessed what happened, the burden of proof still lies with the prosecution to prove that the 3 lads knew they was dragging the policeman behind them.

To have a murder charge stick, the prosecution has to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the 3 lads knew they was dragging the policeman behind them.

Not seeing the court transcripts it's impossible to know what was actually said in court and what evidence the prosecution had (cannot rely on news media). If the transcripts prove that the prosecution had enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 3 lads knew they was dragging the policeman behind them, then yes a return of 'murder' should have come from the jury.

If the Attorney General does find a case that the jury was 'threatened' and thus affecting the juries finding, wont the defence lawyer demand a mistrial and demand the 3 lads be set free?

If evidence is found of 'jury tampering' (threatening the jury) then I would hope any retrial would be done behind closed doors, basically meaning no public allowed because I have no doubt that at the 3 lads trial, there were members of the travelling community sitting in the public gallery doing hand gestures that we commonly note to be threatening gestures, hand swiping across the throat (slashing throat with a knife), pulling up hand from neck (a hanging gesture) and a fist punch into the hand (going to be beaten up)

But the jury CANT find them guilty of murder if they are charged
with manslaughter in the first place Dodge??
Hence my call for the reinstatement of the old MURDER for COP
KILLERS LAW !!!

Along with hanging by the neck "until you are dead".

That latter part has a lovely ring of finality about it!

For me the latter part is the crux ot this issue??
But we would have to start a school for hangmen as l suppose
they have all died out by now??

I'd willingly go on a crash course.

I'd be very happy to learn on the job, learning from my mistakes.
So what, if one or two of them need someone to swing on their legs to finish off the job, or if some accidentally have their heads ripped from their bodies, who cares?

Lethal injection is more humane .