I agree with pretty much what has been already said. Yes, the promramme did somewhat over egg the prosecution case when it didn't need to.

To me the single most compelling piece of evidence against him (although circumstantial) was the phone call that John has alluded to above.

When told that he wasn't going to get the prize due to 'irregularities' there was no shock, no questioning; 'what do you mean?'

Instead: "Oh my god! Of course I refute that"

This before the nature of any 'irregularity' had even been mentioned.

A fair cop, I think