Is there any real doubt about that? (TMN to me btw.)
Officially, there was not enough evidence to establish guilt, and since I wasn't party to the police investigation, the trial, or any behind-the-scenes shenanigans there may or may not have been, I think it's fair to say that doubt has to remain. My suspicion is that anything beyond a small amount of doubt is naive.
However. However bad or biassed the criminal justice system is and was, it's the one we've got, and a positive, trusting but critical attitude to it is better, in my view, than ill-informed, prejudicial leaping to conclusions - whether of the "he's a wrong'un so must be guilty" or the "he's on the side of the angels so must be innocent" variety. (Yes, I have just been reading the Secret Barrister - and it's a very good read, highly recommendable - but I've said the same thing before in various contexts.)
Of course, for a drama you need to establish one narrative. The narrative that Scott was a lying toad and Thorpe a man of impeccable morals isn't going to produce a good drama, and certainly not one that Russell T Davies and Stephen Frears are going to produce. There's a BBC documentary produced around the time and only just broadcast on BBC4 that I haven't yet seen, which may fill in some more of the story.
And apologies for the TMN - I looked back through the thread, but not far enough.
I hate it when good TV series just get cancelled, e.g. Firefly, Dark Angel.
