The jury at the earlier inquest returned the verdict of 'unlawful killing' yet the jury returned a 'not guilty' verdict at the criminal trial. This seems incompatible to me; 'different levels of proof' are talked about but this is just semantics.
Juries are very reluctant to return a guilty verdict against a serving police officer: witness a series of similar cases over the years.
The jury in the very sad Sally Clark case found her guilty of murdering her two children, being swayed by the evidence of expert witness Roy Meadows who showed a lamentable knowledge of genetics and statistics. Although the verdict was eventually overturned Ms Clark never recovered from her experience and this led to her early death. Here the jury was impressed by Sir Professor Doctor Meadows; well he must be right, musn't he?
There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with jury trials. Police officers, expert witnesses, clever laywers all sway juries; can this be right?