I'm willing to be open-minded, as the documentary was certainly one-sided, but if there was any actual evidence, surely it wouldn't come up again and again as a questionable case? Or at least any time it came up, there'd be an instant counter-argument with the proof. Now I've watched it all through, it appears there are multiple people who could be linked to the scene, meanwhile LM is not linked to it, in any way.
Even if he actually did do it (somehow managing to remove every single microscopic trace of forensic evidence from himself in a matter of hours, while seemingly not having cleaned either nails or hair - that's pretty amazing forensic awareness for a 14-year-old!), it really does not seem to me that the conviction can be called safe. We have the "innocent until proven guilty", and "beyond reasonable doubt" (now reworded but still, effectively the same) standard in this country to avoid innocent people going to prison just because someone said they're a weirdo so they must have done it... and it appears that's about the sum of the evidence in this case - he was weird, and he knew her. It simply doesn't meet the standard of proof that we should expect to see - I can only assume the jury had been influenced by the media witch-hunt against him.
(Side question: how did the media frenzy even happen? I thought minor suspects weren't allowed to be named or even have their identity implied until they're found guilty/turn 18? I googled it to check and found
Why can't you name a teenage accused? - "In Scotland the age at which a suspect can be named is 18, under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The act prohibits the publication of the name, address, school or any particulars which could to lead to the identification of any person under 18 who is an accused, victim or witness in criminal proceedings." Last I checked 1995 was before 2003, so...?? )
The statement at the end from the police just made me angry - it's
not a character failing to admit there's a possibility of new evidence/methods leading to a different conclusion, but no, lets blank ignore any such possibility, of course. Who cares that there might be a murderer walking free these last 17 years who could strike again?