If, as claimed in the report, the prosecution could offer no evidence of wrong doing on the part of SSgt (now WO2) McKay, then how did this case ever get to trial? Surely the position with regard to the lack of evidence would have been known beforehand? Or was an innocent SNCO put on trial purely because of the sum of money concerned? If this is the case, then who gave the green light to waste the tax payers money and the Army's time, not to mention causing an unacceptable delay in an innocent man's career and subjecting him to the unwarranted stigma of being a thief.
I appreciate that case's are won and lost during trial, it happens, but for the prosecution to take a case to trial where they can offer no evidence against the accused whatsoever, smacks of victimisation. Which raises another question, was his alibi ever tested?